Working Papers Series: Improving Electricity Services in Rural India

Improving Electricity Services in
Rural India
Vijay Modi
CGSD Working Paper No. 30

December 2005
Working Papers Series

Center on Globalization and
Sustainable Development
The Earth Institute at Columbia University

www.earth.columbia.edu
Improving Electricity Services in Rural India:
An initial assessment of recent initiatives and some
recommendations
Vijay Modi
Abstract
This report examines the status of the rural electricity sector and provides recommendations on
possible reforms in India with a focus two states: Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The current
state of electricity services across India can be said to be acute, if not in a crisis mode, impeding
both economic and social development. The immediate manifestations of this crisis are severe
shortcomings in: access to electricity for rural and urban poor, shortfall in generation capacity and
poor reliability of supply. This report attempts to address the key question: What policy reforms
may make it feasible, within the envelope of political, institutional and financial acceptability, to
bring the benefits of electrification to the rural population?
Foremost, a climate of confidence must be fostered in the electricity sector that reflects a
sustained commitment to a long term plan and stresses the importance of adherence to policies. A
move toward greater cost recovery must be accompanied by reliable service that meets the
specific needs of agriculture, while concurrently curtailing waste of energy and water services.
Life-line rates should be instated for residential users, with higher cost-recovery rates for greater
consumption, to allow for provision of basic electricity services to all rural households.
Information technology should be adopted to lower costs of bill collection and for accurate
metering. The need to develop supply chains for products and parts by working closely with
industrial partners to fulfill demand created by rural electrification schemes is discussed. These
reforms, combined with a focus on capacity building within and modernization of electricity
infrastructure, provide a roadmap to re-invigorating India's energy sector. The evolution of the
power sector in India, the role of SEBs, and the outcomes of key rural electrification schemes are
also detailed in the report.
Vijay Modi is Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New York
2
Table of Contents
Key Recommendations................................................................................. 6
Section I: Introduction ............................................................................... 11
Why is rural electrification important? ................................................................................ 12
Household electricity services and the rural poor................................................................ 14
Section II: Evolution of the power sector in India.................................. 17
State Electricity Boards .......................................................................................................... 17
History of Rural Electrification in India............................................................................... 20
The Electricity Act 2003 ..................................................................................................................... 21
Review of Select Rural Electrificaton (RE) Schemes ......................................................................... 23
Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojna (PMGY) ................................................................................. 24
Kutir Jyoti Program (KJP).............................................................................................................. 24
Minimum Needs Program (MNP).................................................................................................. 24
Accelerated Rural Electrification Program (AREP)....................................................................... 25
Rural Electricity Supply Technology Mission (REST).................................................................. 25
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Section III: Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojna..................... 27

Salient features of the RGGVY.............................................................................................. 27
Universal Service Obligations (USO): Physical and Financial dimensions....................................... 28
Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Criticisms of RGGVY for Scaling-up Electrification Efforts ............................................................. 29
Section IV: Case Studies ........................................................................... 31

Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 31
Electricity Services in the State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................... 33
Key issues in current electricity services ............................................................................................ 33
Load Restrictions ........................................................................................................................... 34
Private sector participation............................................................................................................. 35
Tariff, subsidies and financial restructuring................................................................................... 35
System Losses ................................................................................................................................ 36
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 36
Raisen District..................................................................................................................................... 36
Ground Realities in Raisen Villages ................................................................................................... 38
Electricity Services in the State of Uttar Pradesh ................................................................ 40
Key issues in current electricity services ............................................................................................ 40
Privatization ................................................................................................................................... 42
Lack of resources and supply ......................................................................................................... 42
Unnao District..................................................................................................................................... 42
Ground Realities in Unnao Villages ................................................................................................... 44
Issues in electricity service delivery: electrified villages ............................................................... 45
Issues in electricity service delivery: un-electrified villages.......................................................... 46
Other areas where demand for electricity exists............................................................................. 46
Section V: Scaling up rural electrification in India................................ 47

Impediments to scaling up...................................................................................................... 47
Large numbers of HH with no electricity ........................................................................................... 47
3
Lack of capacity.................................................................................................................................. 47
Franchisee development...................................................................................................................... 49
Agricultural Sector Reforms.................................................................................................. 49
The Energy -Water Nexus................................................................................................................... 49
A region specific approach to reforms ................................................................................................ 51
Household metering and reforms .......................................................................................... 52
Other household sector approaches for rural electrification................................................................ 55
Power Generation and Privatization.................................................................................................... 56
References.................................................................................................... 58
Appendix 1. Privatization of the power sector........................................ 60
Appendix 2. Household Electricity and Water Survey ........................... 66
4
Table No.
Table 1. Countries with large population without access to electricity......................................... 11

Table 2. Retail power tariffs by sector as per Planning Commission, 2002.................................. 14
Table 3. Financial performance of the MPSEB and UPPC (2001-02). ......................................... 18
Table 4. Financial Performance of SEBs in India ......................................................................... 19
Table 5. Reported status of Rural Electrification, March 2004..................................................... 28
Table 6. Cost estimates for village and HH electrification under RGGVY .................................. 29
Table 7. MPSEB figures................................................................................................................ 33
Table 8. Distribution of HH by source of lighting ........................................................................ 37
Table 9. Demographic details of sample villages in Raisen District............................................. 38
Table 10.Characteristics of surveyed villages in relation to land ownership ................................ 39
Table 11.Source of lighting by village in Raisen district .............................................................. 39
Table 12.UPSEB at a glance ......................................................................................................... 41
Table 13.Distribution of HH by source of lighting ....................................................................... 42
Table 14.Power consumption by various activities in the Unnao district ..................................... 43
Table 15.Demographic details of sample villages in Unnao District ............................................ 44
Table 16.Metering status figures - MoP, ARDRP Ninth Plan, 2005............................................. 54
Table 17.Household connections and meters installed in sample villages.................................... 55
Figure No.
Figure 1. Decrease in # of electrified villages due to de-electrification........................................ 13

Figure 2. Domestic product and percentage of electrified households.......................................... 14
Figure 3. Irrigation costs as a % of farm income - Haryana electricity pumps. ............................ 16
Figure 4. Variation in total three-phase, MV line cost (labor and materials)................................ 30
Figure 5. District-wise use of electricity as primary source of lighting ........................................ 34
Figure 6. Electricity consumption by sector.................................................................................. 37
Figure 7. Data from EI/TERI surveys and Census 2001 for village, tehsil, district and state....... 37
Figure 8. District-wise use of electricity as primary source of lighting ........................................ 41
Figure 9. Data from EI/TERI surveys and Census 2001 for village, tehsil, district and state....... 45
Figure 10. APDRP funds utilized and HH electrification ............................................................. 48
Figure 11. APDRP funds utilized and per capita GDP.................................................................. 48
Figure 12. Duration of pump operation by owners of electric and diesel pump sets .................... 50
Figure 13. Percentage of electricity operated groundwater structures to total mechanized
groundwater structures, 1993-94 .......................................................................................... 52
Box No.
Box 1. Primary sources of energy for lighting. ............................................................................. 15

Box 2. Chief Ministers Conference, 2001 ..................................................................................... 21
Box 3. Goals of the Electricity Act 2003 ...................................................................................... 22
Box 4. Failures in the village Behta. ............................................................................................. 43
Box 5. Tunisia’s rural electrification program .............................................................................. 55
Box 6. South Africa’s rural electrification program...................................................................... 56
5
Public Investment Requirements and Electricity Sector Reform1
Case Studies of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh
Key Recommendations
1. Adhere to the Electricity Act 2003 (EA2003) with the aim of creating a climate of
confidence within the electricity sector that reflects commitment to a long term plan
based on the Act. The effect of this sustained commitment will be to send a clear
message to all actors involved of the seriousness for adherence to a policy. This will pave
the path for sustained district and state level planning, with emphasis on monitoring and
decentralized accountability, as well as encourage the private sector to vigorously
participate in the power sector and take on a profitable role as a franchise for installation
and/or distribution.
2. Earlier power sector schemes such as the APDRP (Accelerated Power Development and
Reforms Programme) show low uptake of project funds, i.e. the funds utilized are
frequently a small fraction of the project funds sanctioned. Even though the program was
not exclusive to rural areas, this ratio was below 30% for states such as Bihar, W. Bengal,
UP, Jharkhand, MP, and Chattisgarh. These are also the states where nearly 45 million of
the 78 million people without access to electricity reside. Now with the Rajeev Gandhi
Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), a dramatic increase in availability of funds
will occur with the goal of reaching nearly every village and household. The funds will
target rural electrification (RE), a more human resource intensive proposition due to the
inherently disperse nature of RE. The low uptake of funds in the past may point to
capacity constraints in electrification planning, working with suppliers/contractors,
project preparation, implementation and monitoring within the district level staff.
Perhaps recognizing this constraint, the REC and MoP encourage franchisee development
for the maintenance of distribution systems and for the collection of tariffs at the village
level. However envisioning that “tens of thousands of franchisees are created within the
next 3 to 5 years seeking an enlarged role and opening immense business opportunities”
(from speech by Chairman of REC2) is a task of Herculean proportions. This will change
the role of the SEBs which will have to increasingly manage and oversee contracts
between public and other (NGO, co-operatives and private) providers as well as with
users, ensuring the legal rights and obligations of parties in terms of service and tariffs. It
will require managerial and technical capacity to engage with franchisees, inspection of
installation, verification of delivery of service to standards, performance monitoring,
legal expertise, establishing bulk power purchase agreements with generators with fuel
1
This report is based on the work undertaken for a project entitled ‘Scaling up Services in Rural India’
that is housed at the Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development (CGSD) of the Earth Institute at
Columbia University. CGSD is grateful to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for providing
financial support to this project and especially thanks Smita Singh, Program Director, Global Development,
and Shweta Siraj-Mehta, Program Officer for discussions and their keen interest in this project.
2
Powering Rural India, Speech of the Chairman of REC at the 36th Annual General Meeting held on
September 22nd 2005.
6
cost provisions, minimizing the risks and lowering transaction costs in general. We
recommend that capacity building of this nature be part of the RGGVY scheme.
3. Irrigated agriculture is critical to the Indian economy. Hence a nuanced approach to

reforming agriculture pumping (AP) tariffs is needed. A move towards greater cost
recovery must be accompanied by reliable service that meets the needs of agriculture. A
two-step approach is proposed, with the first being recommended in the short term in
areas where metering of AP with 24-7 supply is not immediately feasible.
a. The first step would be to separate the three-phase AP supply from household
single-phase supply and then this AP network would be energized by scheduling
power supply when it is needed most through reliable timed-delivery (determined
by rainfall and soil moisture requirements) in accordance with the local
agriculture needs and during off-peak hours to reduce costs. This will allow the
system to better meet agriculture needs while at the same time reducing the
supply of electricity for agriculture and hence effectively curtailing agriculture
subsidies (allowing flat-rate tariffs to become closer to cost recovery) and at the
same time reducing wasteful use of energy and groundwater. This will require
co-ordination of the utility with local agriculture/water experts along with a
campaign and community dialogue that would promote the benefits of such an
approach. This approach has been advocated Shah (2001) and as suggested in the
Tata-IWMI water policy briefing, “if well managed, such a strategy could cut
wasteful use of groundwater by 12-18 km3 of water/year in western and
peninsular India alone, reducing power use in groundwater extraction by some 2-
3 billion kWh of power—valued at Rs 4,000-6,000 crores/year (US$0.8 billion-
1.2 billion/year). Plus, it could actually improve farmer satisfaction with the
power industry”.
b. The next step would be to move toward agriculture subsidies that are provided
directly to the consumer in the form of a “smart card” that incorporates low
tariffs for the first block of “lifeline” consumption. Smart-card metering
technology makes is possible to provide the subsidy directly to the consumer as
opposed to the service provider. The higher initial investment of such a
technology is already cost-effective for consumption levels typical of agriculture.
The “lifeline” electricity consumption level would correspond to the demands
and sustainable water yields of small farmers in a region. In aggregate, this
would then pave the way for substantially higher cost-recovery from agriculture
while ensuring that the small farmers growing non water-intensive crops are not
adversely impacted. Metering technologies using smart cards are already used in
South Africa. Higher cost recovery would pave the way for facilitating greater
generation capacity as well as in reducing the adverse impact on industry of
higher tariffs and poor quality supply.
4. Current pricing of metered and un-metered household electricity in most states also ends
up subsidizing middle to high electricity consumers while not adequately meeting the
basic needs of the poor at a low price. It is worth noting that a 100W load (e.g. two CFL
light bulbs and a radio/TV) for 5 hours in the evening corresponds to a household
consumption of less than 20 kWh per month. This initial level of consumption could be
provided at a low flat monthly price of say Rs. 20 per month to any consumer. Technical
means to do this would be either through a combination of timed-supply and load-limiters
where metering is not immediately feasible OR through metering with an initial “lifeline”
7
consumption of 20 kWh per household provided at a flat price of Rs. 20 per month with
higher levels of consumption charged at cost-recovery rates. Instead UP Power
Corporation tariffs are Rs 105 per month for un-metered rural supply OR 90 paisa/kWh
in addition to a flat monthly charge of Rs. 20, with a minimum bill of Rs 150/month per
connection for metered supply. This imposes a minimum monthly payment that could be
unaffordable for the poor. This tariff provides increasingly higher subsidies with energy
consumption to those who consume more than 30 kWh per month (assuming a rough cost
of supply to be close to Rs 3 per kWh).
5. In a high population state with very low coverage of household electricity, a program
such as RGGVY would attempt to bring electrification to nearly 18 million households
over the next five years. The magnitude of this undertaking is immense, but it also
presents a unique opportunity to take advantage of information technologies in
implementing social safety nets and low cost of bill collection. There are measures that
can be implemented in parallel to those listed above. These would be at an initial unit
cost that is higher than that budgeted in RGGVY but has long term benefits. These
measures are:
a. Promote the use of smart prepaid card based electric meters. This technology
makes it possible to implement lifeline tariffs for the poor (ensuring a social
safety net), an electronic form of a voucher or “water stamps” used in Chile. The
system would allow consumers to pay in small amounts for incremental use and
would eliminate the cost of meter-reading, billing and bill collection. These costs
can otherwise make it difficult for a utility to service (i.e. maintain service) a
small rural consumers even when the first costs may be paid through a scheme
such as RGGVY.
b. Promote use of state-subsidized energy-efficient lighting such as compact

fluorescent lamps that represent a cost-effective investment for the utility but
may not be so for a household.
6. Use information technology to monitor metering at feeder and distribution transformer

levels to allow proper auditing of power supply. This will make it possible to detect
abnormalities and create local incentive structure for minimizing losses by making it
possible to enhance monitoring/collection efficiencies. The goal would be that feeders
can then be operated using principles of “stand-alone business units” that will be
accountable for quality of power and reliability, metering, billing and collection (MoP,
2005). This can be implemented immediately in the new 125,000 villages to be
electrified providing a cost-effective jump-start of the program.
7. For domestic supply in rural areas, the RGGVY scheme has set an ambitious challenge.
For this to succeed the political climate will need to be created that empowers the SEBs
to enforce the rules of the EA 2003. This will require that rural household connections
receive reliable service at least during evening hours when domestic rural supply is most
needed. One way to carry out this tricky balancing act while generation capacity
constraints are being met and AT&C (aggregate technical and commercial) loss reduction
requirements are met is to supplement timed evening hour supply with installation of
load-limiters in households that were connected with Kutir Jyoti scheme or for new
households that are going to be covered under the BPL provisions of the RGGVY.
8
8. Develop close co-operation with equipment manufacturers, suppliers and contractors so
that demand arising from large scale policy initiatives can be anticipated, allowing time
for the development of supply chains in a timely fashion in order to deliver the vast
volume of meters, limiters, bulbs, and electrical hardware needed during the installation
phase (whether carried out by a franchisee or the utility) and the anticipated human
resources to ensure that distribution mechanisms are in place for the supply of such
hardware. The same applies for contractor skills in carrying out the task. Mechanisms
also need to be in place to quickly change financing requirements if costs of particular
materials change.
9. There has been substantial investment in the physical electricity infrastructure of the
country since independence. There have been numerous programs in just the last decade
for accelerating rural electrification. These programs have focused on infrastructure
investments but not on management; on ambitious coverage targets but not on financing
or creating incentives for sustainable maintenance of infrastructure stock; on triage of
emergency measures and not on providing reliable services. The windfall if any from
reduced subsidies would have to be invested back in the maintenance of the crumbling
infrastructure, in modernization of the system for transparent accounting and in new
infrastructure. Additionally, investment in building management skills within newly
created Distribution Companies (DisCom) would be needed. With a missionary zeal on
the quality and reliability of electricity supply, it will be possible to charge industry (large
and small) tariffs that will ensure full cost-recovery and more - resources needed to cross-
subsidize social goals of the electricity sector. The economies of scale in power
production have a unique advantage in that the cost of captive power for industry and the
cost of coping mechanisms adopted by medium level consumers (SMEs, commercial
enterprises, shops or wealthy households) is significantly higher than the bulk costs of
electricity generation that a large DisCom would have to otherwise pay.
10. Reliable 24-7 supply to schools, clinics, hospitals, water schemes (where needed),
telecom facilities, government offices, rural markets and small businesses (e.g. grinding
and agro-processing) is essential to meeting the services that the rural populations need.
Many of these institutions are public facilities and a close dialogue with the district
officers and the representative local bodies is needed to ensure that the supply to these
institutions is reliable, and that costs of supply are accounted for through either
transparent “subsidies” or funds transferred between the appropriate government body
and the service provider.
9
Public Investment Requirements and Electricity Sector Reform3
Case Studies of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh
Vijay Modi4
This report is based on the work undertaken during Year I of a two-year project on scaling up
electricity services in rural India. The report focuses on two states: Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh. Unnao district in UP and Raisen district in MP were chosen for in-depth studies.
Detailed questionnaires were administered in five distinct villages in each of the two districts so
that they could be reasonably extrapolated to the district. The report focuses on the rural sector
which is home to 70% of the population in India and nearly 80% of the poor.
Specifically, this report attempts to address one key question: What policy reforms may make it
feasible, within the envelope of political/institutional/financial acceptability, to bring the
“benefits” of electrification to the rural population. The “benefits” here are understood to be the
provision of services that electrification provides, i.e. reliable and timely electric supply for the
water pumping needs of agriculture; reliable supply to adequately meet the lighting and other
domestic needs of households and to meet the needs of industry, government and social service
delivery institutions. The author is providing recommendations to the Government of India with
the hope that this will ensure the rapid and systematic improvement in access to energy services
in rural India. Recommendations are based upon an analysis of rural energy attributes that
highlight key limiting factors and the efficacy of possible strategies to address them.
3
This report is based on the work undertaken for a project entitled ‘Scaling up Services in Rural India’ that
is housed at the Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development (CGSD) of the Earth Institute at
Columbia University. The report was prepared with the assistance of TERI under the leadership of Ibrahim
Hafeezur Rehman. The assistance of Rupesh Agrawal, Ruchika Singh and Ronnie Khanna of TERI in
organization and analysis of field surveys, collecting and documenting background materials for the report
and the editorial assistance of Samina Akbari of Columbia University is gratefully acknowledged.
4
Vijay Modi is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Columbia University (PhD Cornell 1984, Post-doc
MIT 1984-1986). His expertise is in the field of energy sources and conversion, heat/mass transfer and
fluid mechanics. He is also the energy policy advisor to the UN Millennium Project.
10
Section I: Introduction
Expanding electrification and scaling up electricity services is critical to both the economic and
social development of India. The current state of electricity services across India can be said to be
acute, if not in a crisis mode. The immediate manifestations of this crisis are severe shortcomings
in: a) access to electricity for rural and urban poor, b) generation capacity that cannot meet peak
demand and c) reliability of supply, in terms of predictability of outages and quality of power
supply. The goal of this report is propose a set of policy levers that can aggressively reform all
three of these issues at once.
National statistics tell a story of problems afflicting generation, transmission, and distribution of
electricity. Shortages in energy demand and peak power demand have been around 8% and 12%
on average between 2000 and 2003. Industry, farmers and households have invested in a
substantial amount of equipment and capital in the form of captive power plants, generators,
inverters, and voltage stabilizers to address issues of supply and its quality. India, with an average
annual per capita electricity consumption of 400 kWh, is far behind countries such as China (900
kWh), Malaysia (2500 Kwh), and Thailand (1,500 kWh).
While large-scale reforms have repeatedly been attempted in the past, India’s achievement in the
field of rural access to electricity leaves much to be desired. India is home to 35% of the global
population without access to electricity (Table 1) and only 44% of all rural Indian households are
electrified. According to the 2001 Census, 6.02 crore households use electricity as the primary
source of lighting out of a total of 13.8 crore households in the country.
Table 1. Countries with large population without access to electricity

Population w/out access to % of world Per capita electricity
Country electricity (Million) total consumption (kWh)
India 579.10 35.44 393

Bangladesh 104.40 6.39 102
Indonesia 98.00 6.00 390
Nigeria 76.15 4.66 85
Pakistan 65.00 3.98 374
Ethiopia 61.28 3.75 24
Myanmar 45.30 2.77 74
Tanzania 30.16 1.85 55
Kenya 27.71 1.70 107
Nepal 19.50 1.19 61
DPR of Korea 17.80 1.09 1288
Mozambique 16.42 1.00 47
World Total 1634.20 100.00 2343
Source: IEA, 2002
Transmission and Distribution (T&D) losses in India have risen from 25% in 1997-1998 to
around 30% in 1999-2000. In countries such as China, Malaysia, and Thailand, they are less than
10%. The State Electricity Boards (SEBs) that bear primary responsibility for distribution face
irregularities in billing and rampant theft of electricity. It is estimated that of the total power
11
generated, only about 55% is billed, and around 41% is realized5. Cost recovery has declined
from 82% in 1992-1993 to 69% in 2001-2002. The loss per unit of power sold increased from 23
paise in 1992-1993 to 110 paise in 2001-2002. It is ironic that over the period 1991-1992 to 2001-
2002, when so many reforms were introduced, the gross power subsidy to agriculture, domestic
consumers, and on inter-state sales has increased by 364% (or 4.6 times) – from Rs. 7,449 crores
to Rs. 34,587 crores (or about 1.5% of India’s GDP). While just about everyone agrees on the
end-point, (restoring the financial health of the SEBs and power utilities, increasing generation
capacity, and lowering T&D losses) how to tread the narrow and difficult political path to
achieving that goal remains a challenge.
The Kutir Jyoti Scheme released in 1989 connected nearly 60 lakh households in 15 years or at a
rate of approximately 4 lakh households per year. The goal of the RGGVY scheme is to bring
similar coverage to 2.34 crore BPL households (and an overall total of 7.8 crore households)
within the next five years. This is equivalent to a rate of 46 lakh new BPL households per year
(and a total of about 156 lakh households per year) for the next five years. This is a rate that is
more than ten times the past rate of electrification for Kutir Jyoti. The additional generation
capacity that will be needed over the next five years if this accelerated pace (annual rural
electrification rate ten times that of the past 15 years) of rural household electrification is
maintained would require about 14,000 MW of evening hours capacity addition over the next five
years6. An additional 14,000MW of required generation capacity in the next five years amounts
to about 2800 MW/year. This new capacity would have to be planned for, whether it comes from
conservation, reduced losses, higher PLF, or new power plants. It is also worth noting that nearly
half of this new capacity would be needed just in the three states of U.P., Bihar and W. Bengal.
The additional capacity requirement from the RGGVY would be comparable to the capacity
additions since 2002.7 These requirements would be over and above the additional generation
that would be needed to fuel the increase in electricity demand that results from robust economic
growth and the demand that would result if reliable 24-7 grid power were actually available.
Why is rural electrification important?
Both the Government of India Planning Commission’s strategy for the development of rural India
as well as the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals8 (MDGs) for the next ten years
are inherently dependent on the integration of electricity services to achieve a set of varied
development goals. Viable and reliable electricity services result in increased productivity in
agriculture and labor, improvement in the delivery of health and education, access to
communications (radio, telephone, television, mobile telephone), improved lighting after sunset,
facilitating the use of time and energy-saving mills, motors, and pumps, and increasing public
5
The Infrastructure Challenge In India. Paper contributed by Louis de Jonghe, Country Director, India
Resident Mission for the J.R.D. Tata Special Commemorative Volume released by the Associated
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM) on the Occasion of the Sixth J.R.D Tata Memorial
Lecture, 26 August 2003, New Delhi.
6
Here I have assumed that each household would need an end-use capacity of 100 Watts (corresponding to
about one unit or kWh of electricity per day- a stated goal of the MoP and the government as well as a
reasonable estimate) and a generation capacity considering PLF and T&D losses of about twice that per
household.
7
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2004-05/chapt2005/chap93.pdf
8
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were developed in conjunction with the United Nation’s
Millennium Declaration, signed by 189 countries in September 2000, as a commitment to pursuing poverty
reduction and good governance, and to garner support for increasing aid, fostering trade, and providing
debt relief to developing countries. Most importantly, the MDGs have also set the challenging goal of
halving worldwide poverty and hunger by the year 2015.
12
safety through outdoor lighting9. Rural electrification at a household level provides at the very
minimum services such as lighting and communications (e.g. radio/television) and can
increasingly meet the aspirations of the rural populations to own other household appliances.
Household electrification also increases the likelihood that women will read and earn income10.
Under the current 5-Year Plan, the Planning Commission states that rural electrification and
power service reforms are high development priorities. The central government also recognizes
that the current state of energy services could significantly impede India’s economic growth on a
national scale – beyond the rural and agrarian contexts. This realization, along with India’s
gradual economic upswing, has brought the depressed state of energy service providers into the
forefront of energy sector reforms. The failures of past Plans to revitalize power services (less
than half of the goals of the Eight and Ninth Plans were implemented)11 underscore the sense of
hopelessness that surrounds discussions of the state of electricity in India today.
Successes in electrification and electricity services can be achieved, nonetheless, by boldly

confronting the difficulties that have incapacitated the power sector for decades and by adopting a
multi-pronged approach to re-vitalizing energy services in India. Future efforts must implement
best practices and address setbacks in all of the following areas: distribution, power generation,
tariffs, subsidies, monitoring and implementation of government schemes – in effect by
addressing all aspects of energy generation and distribution. While electrification rates have
generally increased over time (recent setbacks recognize that a village as electrified using a
stricter definition of at least 10% hh as being electrified), as seen in Figure 1, household
electrification nationally is still below 50% and the states such as Uttar Pradesh with significantly
lower rate of electrification as measured by fraction of households that use electricity for lighting.
While this figure for U. P. is about 30% for rural households it is 20%. The per capita GDP and
electrification rates of all major states (population greater than 1 million) are shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 1. Decrease in # of electrified villages due to de-electrification
Pace of Village Electrification in India

Cumulative # of Electrified
474982
481124
Villages
273906
106931
3061
1500 21750
1947 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2004

Source: Ministry of Power, RGGVY pamphlet, 2005
9
In a recent report, Modi (2005) provides detailed analytic evidence of the benefits of access to reliable
electricity.
10
ESMAP, 2004
11
Planning Commission, 2002
13
Figure 2. Domestic product and percentage of electrified households
Relationship Between State Domestic Product and Households Electrified
100.0
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
90.0
Gujarat Haryana
Jammu & Kashmir
Tamil Nadu
80.0
Madhya Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra
Kerala
Percentage of Households
70.0
Uttaranchal Andhra Pradesh
60.0
Chattisgarh Rajasthan
50.0
40.0
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
30.0 Orissa
Jharkhand Assam
20.0
Bihar
10.0
0.0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
State Per Capita Domestic Product
Source: Census of India, 2001
Household electricity services and the rural poor

A recent World Bank12 study articulates the inability of current methods of providing reliable and
affordable electricity to the rural poor. Agriculture’s mis-use of power and large government
subsidies have frequently been blamed for the poor state of power supply in rural areas. While the
agricultural sector has received the highest power subsidies (Table 2), blaming agriculture and
particularly the rural poor for the failure of the SEBs is misleading.
Table 2. Retail power tariffs by sector as per Planning Commission, 2002
1999- 2000-01 2001-02
(ps/kWh) 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 2000 Revised Annual
Actual Actual Actual Prov. Est. Plan
Domestic 105.7 136.2 139.1 160.7 183.1 195.6
Commercial 239.1 293.6 330.2 369.9 404.2 426.3
Agriculture 21.2 20.2 21.0 22.6 35.4 41.6
Industry 275.5 312.7 322.8 342 366.5 378.7
Traction 346.8 382.2 410.3 415.3 435.9 449.2
Outside State 151.4 138.1 163.8 190.1 187.9 194.4
Overall (average) 165.3 180.3 186.8 207 226.3 239.9
12
World Bank, 2002
14
Poor rural households and poor farmers are among the populations most in need of immediate
relief. Currently, the vast majority of poor rural households do not have access to electricity in
India. Electrification rates vary dramatically between the urban poor (33% without connection)13
and rural poor (77% without connection), and obviously between the rural poor and the urban
rich. This inequity impedes the development of poor rural populations and underscores the fact
that India’s rural electrification programs have not reached the most marginalized and needy
sections of society. Because such a low number of rural households have grid connections, only a
small percentage of rural poor have benefited from subsidies, with the majority of subsidies
benefiting richer households14. The GoI recognizes that for many rural households the only
source of lighting is kerosene based and hence kerosene at subsidized prices is distributed through
PDS in most states. Box 1 describes kerosene consumption of rural households in greater detail.
Box 1 Primary sources of energy for lighting.
National figures15 per 1000 distribution of rural households by primary source of energy for
lighting shows 506 households use kerosene, 488 using electricity and 10 using other sources for
lighting. The corresponding figures for rural households in MP are 369 households using
kerosene and 625 using electricity while in UP 750 households use kerosene and 235 use
electricity as primary source of lighting. The all India monthly per capita consumption16 for
kerosene in rural areas is reported at .61 liters and that of electricity is 6.35 kWh while in UP it is
.48 liters of kerosene and 1.44 kWh and in MP .51 liters and 4.72 kWh. These low levels of per
capita electricity consumption are inclusive of all electricity consumption in rural – domestic,
commercial and agricultural. The figures can be misleading since the per capita rural
consumption is averaged over the entire rural population and not just those who have access to
electricity. Given that the NEP seeks to provide 1 kWh/ household/day for domestic
consumption alone as lifeline consumption and the average rural household size17 is 5.4, this
would entail scaling up domestic per capita consumption of electricity in rural areas to
approximately 5.5 kWh/month.
Source: NSS, 1999
Irrigation pumping for agriculture has been cited by many as one of the principle causes of poor
cost recovery of SEBs and a prime cause of the poor financial health of the SEBs. However, one
needs to acknowledge that irrigation reduces poverty by increasing employment, incomes and
real wages and by reducing food prices for rural and urban poor18. In India, in un-irrigated
districts (less than 10% area irrigated), 69 % of people are poor, while in irrigated districts (more
than 50% area irrigated), poverty level drops to 26%. Agricultural performance is fundamental to
India's economic and social development and will critically determine the success of efforts in
poverty reduction. Hence a sudden and substantial shift away from current pricing of electricity
for agriculture could have jeopardize agriculture, an activity that is the primary source of
livelihood in rural areas, accounting for 72% of India's population. Irrigated areas in India
contribute two- thirds of food grains output and provide livelihood and income to more than 650
million people in India. Of the 57 million ha net of irrigated area, as much as 34 million ha is
13
World Bank, 2002
14
World Bank, 2002
15
NSS Report No. 464: Energy Used by Indian Households, 1999-2000, Statement 5 Page 23/24
16
TEDDY 2003-04 Table 2.96 Page 324
17
http://www.censusindia.net/hh_series/web/data_highlights_hh1_2_3.pdf
18
From Note prepared by Ramesh Bhatia, President, Resources and Environment Group, New
Delhi for InfraPoor Workshop , 27-29 October 2004 in Berlin, organized by DAC/POVNET Task Team on
Infrastructure for Poverty Reduction.
15
from private investments in tubewells, pump sets and water distribution channels. The poor
frequently pay a high fraction of their gross farm income for irrigation as seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Irrigation costs as a % of farm income - Haryana electricity pumps.
Share in total gross income

40
30
(percent)
20
10
0
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Electricity tariff 12.1 11.9 8.6 6 9.7
Pump maintenance 2.22 0.93 0.43 0.37 0.94
Motor burnout 10.15 4.56 2.39 1.64 4.52
Purchase of Water 0 0.1 0 0 0
Fixed cost of pump 13.27 10.42 6.09 6.08 8.84
Source: World Bank, 2002
16
Section II: Evolution of the power sector in India
State Electricity Boards
Both the central and respective state Indian governments enjoy legislative rights on the subject of
electricity. Electricity distribution,19 however, is the exclusive domain of state governments. Prior
to 1991, the electricity business in the states was in the form of vertically integrated State
Electricity Boards (SEBs). SEBs were owned and operated by the states and were responsible for
generation, transmission and distribution services within the state. SEBs operated under the
proviso of the Electricity Supply Act of 1948, and were supplemented in their efforts by the
Central Public Sector Utilities (CPSUs) like the NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation),
the NHPC (National Hydro-electric Power Corporation), and the PGCIL (Power Grid
Corporation of India).
The 1st Plan emphasized that support for projects that ensure that irrigation potential is met. At
this point, only 1 in 200 villages were connected to grid supply across the country. The 2nd plan
named rural electrification as an area of special interest, and proposed to cover all towns with a
population of 10,000 or more. Only 350 out of a total of 856 of were eventually electrified. The
3rd Plan for the 1st time raised the issue of efficiency in the sector. The REC (Rural
Electrification Corporation) was created in 1969 with renewed focus on poverty alleviation. The
target based approach of rural electrification was developed in the 4th and 5th Plan periods, with
focus on pump set energization and guidelines for village grid connectivity for all villages with a
population of at least 5000.
The early 80’s saw major changes in conjunction with the creation of the Commission for
Additional Sources of Energy (CASE) in 1981, which evolved into a full-fledged Ministry for
Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES) in 1992. The 6th and 7th Plan periods witnessed the
launch of innovative rural energy programs like the National Program on Improved Chulha
(NPIC) in (1983), The National Project on Biogas Development (1981-82), Special Program
Agriculture (SAP) and integrated energy programs like IREP (Integrated Rural Energy Planning)
and Urjagram.
With the institutionalization of the MNES in the early 90s, rural energy provision now largely
rests with the RECs and MNES. Covering a wide range of technology and fuel options including
renewable sources, national efforts at rural energy provision offer a variety of programs to
address the range of energy requirements of rural populations.
Growth in the period from 1947 until reforms were instated in 1991 was impressive in increasing
capacity generation from 1362 MW in 1947 to nearly 74 699 MW by 1991-92.20 Despite a per
capita power consumption increase from 15.55 Kwh to 252.7 Kwh, SEBs were financially weak.
The 4th Plan and the findings of the Venkatraman Committee report (created to examine the
financial working of the SEBs), concurred that SEBs should at the very least aim at revenues
sufficient to cover operational and maintenance charges, depreciation of reserves and interest
charges on the capital base.
19
Distribution Policy Committee Report, MoP, GoI March 2002
20
pib.nic.in/archieve/factsheet/fs2000/power.html
17
Table 3 highlights the performance of the 2 target SEBs for the year 2001-2002. It is clear that the
SEBs have made an overall negative rate of return. This has severely constrained their capacities
for making investment in generation. Table 4 highlights the performance of SEBs at the national
level. It can be seen that for all 5 years, the recovery percentage has been between 67 to 77%. The
gross subsidy per unit distributed has remained constant at 34% of the cost of delivery and on
average realizations from a subsidized sector like agriculture make up only 10% of the cost of
supply.
Table 3. Financial performance of the MPSEB and UPPC (2001-02).
SEBs Commercial Profit/Loss Commercial Profit/Loss
with Subsidy without Subsidy
Madhya Pradesh -3183 -3682
Uttar Pradesh
(Power Corporation) -1887 -2687
India -24837 -33177
Source: www.indiastate.com, Rs. in crores.
Despite repeated warning by the Planning Commission and subsequent committees examining the
power sector such as the Committee on Power (Rajadhyaksna Committee) and the Planning
Commission Working Group on Energy Policy (1979), the crucial issue of rational pricing of
electricity was left un-addressed. Increasing SEB losses, pressure on scarce public resources and
the reforms of 1991 ultimately forced the opening of the hitherto monopolistic SEBs to private
participation.
Even as the 40 year period saw nearly 80% of the country connected to grid supply, up from the
few urban pockets of electricity supplied at the time of independence, the SEBs cumulatively
were being given an annual gross subsidy of Rs.7,450 crores21 by 1991-92, losing about Rs.4,021
crores 22a year and showing an average rate of return (without subsidy) of about -12.5%. By
March 31, 2001 the gross subsidy had shot up to Rs. 38,000 crores a year with total SEB
outstanding to CPSU and others at Rs.27,760 crores23.
The SEBs incorporated under the ESA 1948 were government owned. While electricity was
perceived as a public good, there was lack of clarity as to who should pay for it. The lack of
transparent and well defined subsidies that would be paid from the exchequer to the SEBs to
implement specific government policies led to tariffs that were not sustainable. Despite the
recommendations of the Venkataraman Committee (1964), which suggested that SEBs should
aim at an overall return of 11 percent, and the 6th Plan’s calling for an energy pricing policy, the
commercial principles underlying tariff revision more often than not were superseded by political
considerations.
The share of the electricity sector in the five-year plans has been in the range of 15%-20%.
However investment has gone into generation rather than transmission and distribution. In terms
of actual investments 72% has gone toward generation, 18% towards transmission and only 10%
toward distribution.24 The GoI has consequently launched the APDR,25(Accelerated Power
Development and Reform Program), to ensure matching investments in T&D.
21
MoP, Distribution Policy Report 2002
22
http://www.ciionline.org/Common/91/Images/StateOfStateFinances.PDF
23
MoP, Distribution Policy Report 2002
24
Report of the Task force on Power Sector Investments and Reforms, 2004
25
http://www.apdrpbestpractices.com/
18
By 1991-92, T& D Losses (with difficult to separate technical and non-technical components
such as theft, and un-metered consumption), stood at over 20% 26 officially and about 30%
unofficially, 27 taking into account the inaccuracy of non-metered consumption and losses
sometimes disguised as agricultural consumption. The Distribution Policy Committee Report in
2002 paints a similar picture, with actual losses ranging between 40%-50%, including technical
losses of about 15%-20%, and commercial losses of about 25%-30%. Thus, for every 2 units of
energy consumed, one unit was lost due to T&D losses.28 The GoI, in accordance with its LPG
(Liberalization, Globalization & Privatization) policy opened the sector for private participation
in early 1992 with amendments to the Electricity Supply Act of 1948. But private participation
was encouraged only in generation, protecting SEBs from competition. This change necessitated
a comprehensive new set of regulations covering generation, transmission, trading and
distribution. The culmination of a decade of piecemeal efforts29 at reforming the power sector
finally passed in Parliament as the Electricity Act 2003.
Table 4. Financial Performance of SEBs in India
Description 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
(Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (RE) (AP)
Cost of Supply (Paise/Kwh) 215.6 239.73 263.05 305.12 327.16 349.85
Average Tariff (Paise/Kwh) 165.3 180.3 186.77 206.98 226.26 239.92
% of Recovery 76.7 75.21 71 67.84 69.16 68.58
Average Agri. tariff 21.2 20.22 21.01 22.61 35.38 41.54
(Paise/Kwh)
Commercial Losses (with -4674 -7597 -10508 -15088 -17793 -24837
subsidy) (Rs. Crore)
Commercial Losses (without -11305 -13963 -20860 -26353 -25259 -33177
subsidy) (Rs. Crore)
Net Internal -2090.7 -6209 -8954.4 -13316.3 -15620.6 -19103.9
Resources (Rs. Crore)
Subsidy for Domestic 4386.01 5258.43 6332.48 8121.11 10036.07 12238.51
Consumers (Rs. Crore)
Subsidy for Agri. 15585.2 17706.67 20693.87 22508.61 24699.18 28123.27
Consumers (Rs. Crore)
Gross Subsidy*(Rs. Crore) 20209.96 23422.23 27482.23 31003.28 35079.85 40721.59
Subvention Received(Rs. 6630.6 6364.8 10351.55 11264.53 7465.33 8339.62
Crore)
Uncovered Subsidy 5805.03 8046.61 8785.42 14431.69 21867.29 26638.42
(Rs. Crore)
Gross Subsidy/Unit 75.4 82.57 92.8 103.81 111.42 119.75
(Paise/Kwh)
Source: http://powermin.nic.in/distribution
26
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/9th/vol2/v2c6-2.htm
27
http://www.indiainfoline.com/infr/spfe/sebs.html
28
Source: Report of the Task force on Power Sector Investments and Reforms, 2004
29
Orissa Reform Act 1996, CERC 1998, SERC 1999
19
History of Rural Electrification in India
Review of electrification in the 1950’s and 60’s shows that despite their implied Universal
Service Obligation (USO), rural electrification was essentially an attempt by the SEBs to connect
cities and towns. The gradual interconnection30 of towns and cities was expected to ensure
universal electrification in due time. However, with a realization of the potential benefits of
electricity by villagers and elected representatives jockeying for electrification of villages in their
political constituencies, the planning process was reduced to a numbers game31 by politicians
intent upon declaring as many villages ‘electrified’ as possible. Although the number of
electrified villages has increased rapidly, the number of households electrified has not matched
the pace. The MoP’s paper32 on rural electrification (RE) states that 87% of villages are
electrified, while only 42-44% of rural households are electrified.
With growing financial constraints and increasing demand for RE, the GoI used USAID
assistance to create the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) in 1969. The REC, built upon the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) experience in the United States, is mandated to facilitate
availability of electricity in rural and semi-urban areas. During its thirty-five years of existence,
the REC has financed numerous village electrification, pump set energization and Low Tension
system improvement projects. However, with the focus being extensive (number of villages
electrified) rather than intensive (% of households covered), large gaps33 remain in rural
electrification. With the change in definition34 of an electrified village, the mid-term review of
India’s Tenth Five-Year Plan has acknowledged that the year-end figures as of 31st March 2004
of 84.3% village electrification would reduce to less than 70%. An all-party consensus35
recommended complete rural electrification by 2007 and complete coverage of all households by
2012 (Box 2).
Metering at 11-kV feeder reached 94% and at the consumer end was reported to reach 86%
at the national level. Thirteen states (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttaranchal)
achieved 100% metering status at 11-kV feeder, and in four states (Delhi, Himachal Pradesh,
Kerala, and Punjab) at the consumer level. 36The improvements can be attributed mainly to the
APDRP (Accelerated Power Development and Reform Program) launched by the Union
Government, with 100% metering being one of the major objectives under the distribution reform
segment of the program.
30
ADB Policy Research Network, Draft Paper on Rural Electrification, TL Shankar January 30,2005
31
The 2nd Plan mentioned small town and rural electrification for the first time in a plan document and
proposed to cover all towns with a population of 10,000 or more. The 3rd plan went on commit
electrification of all towns and villages with population exceeding 5,000.
Source http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/default.html accessed on 15/09/2005
32
Ministry of Power, Government of India, Discussion Paper on Rural Electrification Policies (Pursuant to
Sections 4&5 of the Electricity Act 2003). The draft remains to be notified as on 28/09/05.
33
http://planningcommission.nic.in/midterm/english-pdf/chapter-10.pdf accessed on 24/09/05
34
http://powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp accessed on 24/09/05
35
MoP, Discussion Paper on Rural Electrification Policies, November 2003. Page 9 .The draft has not been
notified as on 28/09/05
36
MoP, 2004b
20
Box 2. Chief Ministers Conference, 2001
To build a national consensus, the Prime Minister of India convened a meeting on March 3,
2001 of all Chief Ministers. Important resolutions that were adopted included:
Rural electrification
Electrification of all villages and households, and rural electrification to be treated
as a basic minimum service
Rural electrification to be completed by 2007 and all households by 2012
States to be given flexibility for using funds under Rural Development Programs
with the consent of village/block panchayats for undertaking electrification
Electrification of remote villages to be included under a special mode of financing
including a grant
Distribution reforms
Full metering of all consumers to be completed on a priority basis
Handing over of local distribution to panchayats / local bodies / franchisees /
user associations, wherever necessary
Privatization of distribution
Efforts by states, at inviting private investment in the power sector
Tariff determination by regulatory commissions and subsidies
Tariffs orders by CERC and SERCs to be implemented fully
Subsidies to be given only to the extent of the state government's capacity to
pay through budget provisions
Move away from providing free power
Decision of Chief Ministers of a minimum agricultural tariff of 50 paise to be
Implemented
Source: Report of the Task force on Power Sector Investments and Reforms, 2004.
The Electricity Act 2003
Conceptualizing the growing domestic and global concerns over the increasing divide between
rural and urban areas, the Electricity Act 2003 (EA03) for the first time mentions rural
electrification in a law. Section 6 of the act mandates the hitherto implied Universal Service
Obligation by stating that the government shall endeavor to supply electricity to all areas
including villages and hamlets (see Box 3). Section 5 further mandates the formulation of
national policy on RE focusing specially on management of local distribution networks through
local institutions. Subsequently, the GoI has released a draft paper on National Rural
Electrification Policy. Giving a further boost to RE, the EA03 in Section 4 also frees stand-alone
generation and distribution networks from licensing requirements.
The new definition37 of an electrified village reflecting the commitments under EA03 are:
• Basic infrastructure such as distribution transformers and distribution lines are

provided in the inhabited locality as well as in all Dalit bastis/hamlets.
(For electrification through Non-Conventional Energy Sources a distribution
transformer may not be necessary)
37
http://powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp
21
• Electricity is provided to public places like schools, panchayat offices, health centers,
dispensaries and community centers.
• The number of households electrified should be at least 10% of the total number of
households in the village.
Box 3. Goals of the Electricity Act 2003

Stated objectives:
Competition, Protection of Consumers interests & Power for all Areas
Create liberal framework for power development.
Create competitive environment.
Facilitate private investment.
Delicense generation except for hydro: Captive free from controls.
Rural Areas : Stand alone Generation and Distribution delicensed
Multiple licensing in distribution.
Stringent provisions for controlling theft of electricity.
Focus on revenue recovery in cases of unauthorized use of electricity.
Oblige states to restructure SEBs.
Mandates creation of Regulatory Commissions.
Retail tariff to be determined by regulatory commissions.
Open access in transmission from outset.
Open access in distribution to be allowed by SERCs in phases.
Gradual phasing out of cross subsidies.
Trading distinct activity permitted with licensing.
Source: Indian Ministry of Power website http://powermin.nic.in
The broad goals of RE as set out in the draft REP, referred to as AARQA goals, are as follows:
• Accessibility – electricity to all households by 2012

• Availability – adequate supply to meet demand by 2012
• Reliability- ensure 24 hour supply by 2012
• Quality- 100% quality supply by 2012
• Affordability- pricing based on consumer ability to pay
While the REP seeks to achieve 100% household electrification by 2012 primarily through grid
extension, stand-alone systems are also envisioned for areas where grid extension may not be
possible on account of techno-economic factors. Pursuant to the REP all state governments are
required to formulate state level strategies and notify the same within 6 months from the
22
notification of the REP. The draft policy also seeks to provide at least 1 kWh/day to all BPL
households38 and ensure that quality as against the prevailing problem of blackouts.
The Planning Commission’s mid-term review of India’s Tenth Plan39 states that the current
practice of 40% capital subsidy for rural electrification programs has been far from successful.
The plan review has accepted and recommended the Ministry of Power’s proposal of a 90%
capital subsidy scheme for 100% household electrification over the next 5 years as envisioned in
the National Common Minimum Program (NCMP)40. However, the mid-term review goes on to
qualify the 90% capital subsidy will be successful only if a sustainable revenue model is in place.
Similarly, the first report of the Standing Committee on Energy41, Fourteenth Lok Sabha 2004-05,
had identified rural electrification as an essential infrastructure input for improving production-
oriented activities42 and speeding up the pace of development of the rural economy. In its
submission to the committee for the year 2004-05, the Ministry of Power outlined a new
strategy43 involving creation of a Rural Electricity Distribution Backbone (REDB), Village
Electricity Infrastructure (VEI). This also included distribution transformers in each village where
grid access was feasible, and a decentralized distributed generation (DDG) and supply for villages
where grid connectivity or NCES (non conventional sources of energy) might not be possible or
cost effective. The committee, while accepting the Ministry of Power’s new proposal, had,
however, highlighted that despite the availability and sanctioning of funds, the actual utilization
of funds for rural electrification projects was low.44
Review of Select Rural Electrificaton (RE) Schemes45
Rural electrification is the backbone of rural economy and a basic input for rapid rural
development. It is also the main infrastructure for ensuring speedy growth of the agriculture
sector and agro based industrial structure in rural areas. By March, 31st 2004, 86% of villages
had been electrified. In addition, out of the total estimated pump set potential of 195.94 lakh,
about 141.15 lakh pump sets (63%) had been energized. During 2003-04, about 2,706 new
villages had been electrified and about 2.5 lakh pump sets were energized.
The main sources of funding for current rural electrification programs are:
(i) The Rural Electrification Corporation

(ii) Plan allocation to the States.
(iii) Funds support from Government as loan and grant
(iv) Institutional financing bodies like commercial banks
(v) International financing agencies like OECF etc
38
The National Electricity Policy goes further and envisions a minimum lifeline consumption of 1
unit/household/day as a merit good by year 2012.
http://powermin.nic.in/whats_new/national_electricity_policy.htm
39
http://planningcommission.nic.in/midterm/cont_eng1.htm accessed on 24/09/05
40
http://nac.nic.in/ncmp.htm accessed on 12/09/05
41
http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Energy/1Energy.pdf Demand for Grants (2004-05)
42
http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Energy/1Energy.pdf page 45 accessed on 24/09/05
43
http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Energy/1Energy.pdf page 52 accessed on 24/09/05
44
http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Energy/1Energy.pdf page 53 accessed on24/09/05
45
23
The Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) was established as a public sector undertaking in
July, 1969. Initially, the principal objectives of the corporation were to finance RE schemes and
promote rural electricity co-operatives for funding rural electrification projects across the country.
The tasks assigned to the corporation have occasionally been expanded. The main objects
currently are:
(i) To subscribe to special rural electrification bonds that may be issued by the State
Electricity Boards on conditions to be stipulated from time to time.
(ii) To promote and finance rural electricity co-operatives in the country.
(iii) To administer the money received from the GoI and other sources such as grants.
(iv) To promote, organize or carry on the business of consultancy services and/or
project implementation in any field of activity in which it is engaged in India and
abroad.
(v) To finance and/or execute works on small/mini/micro-generation projects, to
promote and develop other energy sources and to provide financial assistance for
leasing out the above sources of energy.
(vi) To finance survey and investigation of projects.
(vii) To promote, develop and finance viable decentralized power system
organizations in cooperative, joint, private sector, panchayat and/or local bodies.
Select RE schemes that have shown varying degrees of success are reviewed below.
Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojna (PMGY)
The PMGY launched in 2000-2001 provided additional financial assistance for minimum services
by the central government to all states on a 90% loan and 10% grant basis. These included rural
health, education, drinking water and rural electrification. The PMGY, with an outlay of about
Rs 1600 crores during the 10th Plan period, was being coordinated and monitored by the Rural
Development Division of the Planning Commission. More importantly, under PMGY states had
the flexibility to decide on the inter-reallocation of funds amongst the 6 basic services. Thus
states could enhance allocations to expedite the pace of rural electrification. The scheme has been
discontinued46 from 2005 onwards.
Kutir Jyoti Program (KJP)
KJP was initiated in 1988-89 to provide single point light connection (60 w) to all Below Poverty
Line (BPL) households in the country. KJP provides 100% grant for one time cost of internal
wiring and service connection charges and builds in a proviso for 100% metering for release of
grants. Nearly 5.1 million households have been covered under the scheme to date. The scheme
was merged into the ‘Accelerated Electrification of One Lakh Villages and One Crore
Households’ in May 2004 and now into the RGGVY.
Minimum Needs Program (MNP)
The MNP, exclusively targeted states with less than 65% rural electrification (by the old
definition)47 provides 100% loans for last mile connectivity. The program resources are drawn
46
Presentation on Rural electrification, RE Division, Ministry of Power, 6th October 2005
47
Old definition of an electrified village: A village will be deemed to be electrified if electricity is used in
the inhabited locality, within the revenue boundary of the village, for any purpose whatsoever.
24
from the Central Plan Assistance. Rs. 775 crore was released during 2001-03 for rural
electrification under the MNP. The scheme was discontinued in 2004-05 on account of
difficulties in implementation.
Accelerated Rural Electrification Program (AREP)
The AREP, operational since 2002, provides an interest subsidy of 4% to states for RE programs.
The AREP covers electrification of un-electrified villages and household electrification and has
an approved outlay of Rs. 560 crore under the 10th Plan. The interest subsidy is available to state
governments and electricity utilities on loans availed from approved financial institutions like the
REC (Rural Electrification Corporation), PFC (Power Finance Corporation) and from NABARD
under the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF).
Rural Electricity Supply Technology Mission (REST)
The REST was initiated on 11th September 2002. The mission’s objective48 is the electrification
of all villages and households progressively by year 2012 through local renewable energy sources
and decentralized technologies, along with the conventional grid connection.
REST proposes an integrated approach49 for rural electrification and aims:
• To identify and adopt technological solutions

• To review the current legal and institutional framework and make changes when
necessary
• To promote, fund, finance and facilitate alternative approaches in rural
electrification, and
• To coordinate with various ministries, apex institutions and research
organizations to facilitate meeting national objectives
Accelerated Electrification of One Lakh Villages and One Crore Households, MNP and Kutir
Jyoti have now been merged with the RGGVY, discussed in detail ahead.
Conclusion
A review of state-wise targets and achievements in village electrification and Kutir Jyoti
connection figures show that targets have not been met in the last three years. Although major
programs have been targeted in states such as Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal, the achievements are short of targets and in cases and in some instances,
nonexistent. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the pace of village electrification has been
slowing down with only 18,500 villages electrified during the 9th plan compared with 120,000
during the 6th plan. However, the same period saw a rapid increase in pump set energization with
states declaring ‘zero’ tariff for power supply to agriculture. For example in UP50, the number of
energized pump sets rose from 4.03 lakhs in 1980 to 6.36 lakhs in 1990.
http://powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp definition of an electrified village accessed on

20/09/05
48
http://powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp REST mission accessed on 20/09/05
49
TERI, National Strategy for Rural Electrification, September 2003
50
ADB Policy Research Network, Paper on Rural Electrification, TL Shankar January 2005
25
The Chief Ministers conference held on 3rd March 2001 recognized the need to take approach RE
in a de-politicized manner. This political commitment towards achieving the goal of 100% village
electrification in a sustainable manner is evidenced through the passage of the Electricity Act
2003, through changes in the definition of an electrified village and through the merging of a
number of RE programs into one umbrella program - the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran
Yojna (RGGVY).
26
Section III: Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojna
The RGGVY is the latest51 national RE scheme launched by the Ministry of Power to execute the
vision for rural electrification as enunciated in the NCMP and recommended by the Chief
Ministers conference in 2001. The plan was instated in April of 2005 with the following
objectives:
• 100% electrification of all villages and habitations in the country
• Electricity access to all households
• Free of cost electricity connection to BPL (Below Poverty Line) households
For achieving the said objectives, the RGGVY envisions creating a:
• Rural Electricity Distribution Backbone (REDB) with at least one 33/11 KV (or
66/11 KV) substation in each block
• Village Electrification Infrastructure (VEI) with at least one distribution
transformer in each village/habitation
• Decentralized Distributed Generation (DDG) systems where the grid is not cost-
effective or feasible
Upon launching the RGGVY Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Council,
stated:52 "Rural electrification in all its aspects forms a key - I would say the key - component of
Bharat Nirman. The diversification of the rural economy, so very essential to manage the
demographic pressures in the countryside, depends critically on the easy availability of reliable
power."
Salient features of the RGGVY

The RGGVY positions rural electricity as a necessary component for broad based economic and
human development, looking beyond the prevalent RE framework of increasing agricultural
production through irrigation. The program, in addition to meeting the household electricity
needs, looks at 24 hours supply of quality grid power to rural areas for spreading industrial
activity, provision of modern healthcare facilities, and the use of IT.
The RGGVY recognizes the need for revenue sustainability for RE projects and boldly states that
Electricity supplied must be paid for.53 The scheme proposes the management of rural
distribution through franchisees who could be user associations, cooperatives; NGO’s or even
individual entrepreneurs. Further, the distribution utilities under the new RE framework are
required to enter into Bulk Supply Tariff agreements (BST) with the proposed franchisees to
ensure commercial viability. The state governments are also required to make adequate
provisions for revenue subsidy to the utility. RGGVY thus, for the 1st time, even while providing
51
The Minimum Needs Program, Accelerated Electrification of One Lakh Villages and One Crore
Households Scheme and Kutir Joyti Programs have been merged with the RGGVY.
52
http://www.renewingindia.org/newsletters/bee/current/bee_apr_06_05.htm
53
http://recindia.nic.in/download/RGGVY_brochure.doc
27
capital subsidy for RE projects, links subsidy provision to revenue sustainability barring which
the REC could convert the said capital subsidy into interest bearing loans54.
Universal Service Obligations (USO): Physical and Financial dimensions
In terms of targets for achieving the USO under the electricity access goals over the next 5 years,
the number55 of un-electrified villages in the country is estimated at 112,401. The ministry
estimates that the number of un-electrified villages is likely to rise to 125,000 as per the new
definition of village electrification. The Census of India 2001 puts national rural household
electrification at 43.52%, leaving around 78 million to be connected to the grid. The picture
however is not complete without taking the wide-ranging disparities in village and household
electrification across states into account.
The Census of India 2001 reports household electrification at 10.30% in Bihar and 24.30% in
Jharkhand, and 32% for UP and 70% for MP. Several states like Himachal Pradesh and Punjab
show over 90% household electrification (see Table 5). A two-pronged approach is required to
address, first, villages that are already electrified and those that need intensive household
electrification and, and second, extending the grid to the remaining un-electrified villages.
Table 5. Reported status of Rural Electrification, March 200456

Electrified states Electrified states
States Electrified Electrified States Electrified Electrified
villages (%) households (%) villages (%) households (%)
Punjab 100.00 91.90 MP 97.43 70.00
Haryana 100.00 82.90 Rajasthan 98.38 54.70
Gujarat 100.00 80.40 Chhattisgarh 94.0 53.10
Maharashtra 100.00 77.50 West Bengal 83.63 37.50
Tamil Nadu 100.00 78.20 Orrisa 80.15 26.90
Kerala 100.00 70.20 North-east 75.32 33.20
AP 100.00 67.30 UP 58.73 31.90
Himachal P 99.38 94.80 Bihar 50.00 10.30
Karnataka 98.91 78.50 Jharkhand 26.00 24.30
Source: Planning Commission, 2005
While information on the number of villages under these categories is still being compiled by the
MoP,57 the RGGVY presents the following outline for the resources required to achieve 100%
household and village electrification (Table 6):
54
Sections 4&5 of the Electricity Act 2003). The draft remains to be notified as on 28/09/05 page 21
55
http://recindia.nic.in/download/RGGVY_brochure.doc, Annexures II and III
56
http://planningcommission.nic.in/midterm/english-pdf/chapter-10.pdf
57
ADB Policy Research Network, Draft Paper on Rural Electrification, TL Shankar,2005
28
Table 6. Cost estimates for village and HH electrification under RGGVY
S. No. Particulars Amount: Rs. in Crores
1 Electrification of 125,000 un-electrified villages which includes 8,125.00

development of backbone network comprising Rural Electricity
Distribution Backbone (REDB) and Village Electrification Infrastructure
(VEI) and last mile service connectivity to 10% Households in the village
@ Rs. 6.50 lakh / village
2 Rural Households Electrification (RHE) of population under BPL i.e. 3,510.00

30% of 7.8 crore. Un-electrified Households, i.e. 2.34 crore households @
Rs. 1500/H/H as per Kutir Jyoti dispensation
3 Augmentation of backbone network in already electrified villages having 4,620.00

un-electrified inhabitations @ Rs. 1 lakh / village for 4.62 lakh villages
Total (1+2+3) 16,255.00
Outlay for the scheme 16,000.00
Subsidy component@ 90% for items 1 & 3 and 100% for item 2 14,750.00
Component of subsidy to be set aside for enabling activities including 160.00
technology development @1% of outlay
Source: RGGVY Rural Electrification Corporation, 2005
Sustainability
While one-time grants are proposed under the scheme, it also recognizes the need for a revenue
model to sustain the rural electrification process. A franchisee model along with contractual
obligation for O&M is proposed under the scheme to ensure sustainability of the REDB and VEI.
However, with detailed guidelines on the size and revenue model for proposed franchises not yet
in place, the REDB and VEI set up under RGGVY could just end up being a linear extension of
rural electrification schemes of the past.
Criticisms of RGGVY for Scaling-up Electrification Efforts
To reach the goals set by the GoI in an efficient manor, well-planned central-level schemes are
necessary to aide in bringing grid connections to all rural households. Geographic isolation and
lack of infrastructure leave rural households the most energy poor citizens, having the least access
to energy services and their benefits. In order to bring the benefits of electricity to the rural poor
while maintaining a sustainable and profitable electricity industry, policy initiatives must ensure
that the fixed costs of electrification are largely borne by the state. The most effective way to
achieve this is to subsidize the initial hookup and hardware costs.
The RGGVY scheme has a similar approach. A review of the RGGVY scheme costing suggests
that the current costs for a single household grid connection (effectively Rs. 1500/HH or $30/HH)
may only be barely adequate for households that are within 25 meters of a distribution network. A
careful analysis of the cost structure would be needed since the geographic distances assumed are
not supported by data and the costs of new metered hookup are lower than an approximate factor
of four compared to the lowest costs of rural electrification found anywhere in the world. Low
voltage distribution wire and poles alone can cost $1 to $1.50/meter. While India has one of the
lowest costs of extending the grid (see Figure 4), the rising costs of materials needs to be
29
accounted for. If a franchisee model is to succeed, the labor costs, and the costs of meters (or load
limiters) installation would either need to be included or a means to pay for them gradually be
incorporated. The pitfalls of a scheme being under-funded are that the funds will either not be
effectively used or final targets will not be met.
The new definition of an “electrified village” now requires that at least 10% of HH in the village
are electrified. While the scheme includes funds to electrify the 2.34 crore BPL households, what
is unclear is how the remaining rural households will be electrified. Field experiences in UP and
MP confirm that almost all rural households there want electricity connections, with the largest
barrier being adequate funds to pay for the initial cost of the connection. With a focus, on being
extensive (no of villages electrified) rather than intensive (% of households covered), large gaps
may remain in rural electrification.
While the RGGVY presents a comprehensive and standardized method for actual installation of
grid connections and meters and proposes a large scale involvement of franchisees, one of the
programs weaknesses is its lack of an explicit plan for the monitoring of new installation and
follow-up. One possible solution is to pay private companies to install lines, meters, and to hold
the state responsible only for monitoring.
For an order of magnitude higher rate of rural electrification than has been successfully carried
out in the past, one also needs to develop supply chains for products and parts by working closely
with industrial partners. RGGVY, along with all past RE programs, needs to develop these
partnerships from the start.
Figure 4. Variation in total three-phase, MV line cost (labor and materials).
25,000
Cost / kilometer (US$)
20,000
15,000
Materials
10,000 Labor
5,000
0
Phillippines (Tarelcoll)
Ippahannok (U.S.A)
Phillippines (NEA)
Mettler Inc (U.S.A)
Benton REC (U.S.A)
Phillippines (Moresco)
El Salvador
Bangladesh
Senegal (1)
Senegal (2)
India
Bolivia
Mali
Laos
Source: ESMAP, 2000
30
Section IV: Case Studies
To get sense of on the ground reality in the two states of UP and MP, one district in each state and
five villages within each of these districts were selected for field studies. The outline of the
methodological approach for the study includes following major steps:
Selection of districts – Unnao district in Uttar Pradesh and Raisen district in Madhya Pradesh
were identified by the Earth Institute at Columbia University for the purpose of the study.
Selection of villages –Attempting to capture the impact and attributes of energy services
provision, the developmental indicators used for the purpose of village selection were:
• Percentage of SC/ST population in the villages

• Percentage of literacy level
• Percentage of marginal workers
As per information available from the Census of India 2001, villages in both districts were ranked
on each of the three indicators. The individual indicator ranking for each village was aggregated
to develop a composite integrated rank indicator for each village in the district. The integrated
rank indicators were statistically segregated over 4 quartiles. Ten villages were selected from
each of the three inter-quartile boundaries and 10 each from the lowest and highest aggregated
ranks. The final 5 villages were chosen to ensure that the villages were geographically spread
across tehsils.
Data Collection
Surveys were conducted in the ten sampled villages (five in each district). Focus group
discussions were held in the communities to assess the status of services. The following sources
were tapped to collect relevant information about electricity services in rural India:
Madhya Pradesh State Electricity boards, circle office Bhopal and Raisen.
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity boards, Unnao.
Public Health and Engineering Department, Bhopal and Raisen
Rajiv Gandhi Mission, Bhopal
District Agriculture department, Raisen
District water resources department, Raisen
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Unnao
District NIC office, Raisen and Unnao
Census of India office, Delhi
NSSO
Consultation with key stakeholders - The key stakeholders that were consulted for the purpose of
the study are:
Chief Engineer, Madhya Pradesh SEB, Raisen

Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh SEB, Unnao
31
District Collector, Raisen and Unnao
PHED officials in Bhopal
UP Jal Nigam, officials, Unnao
Panchayat members- Sarpanch
Despite the fact that the team visited the PHED/Jal Nigam office several times, officials of the
PHED / Jal Nigam, Raisen and Unnao were not available for discussion.
The primary data helped in assessing the current ground realities, quality of access and
constraints faced at the field level. Data was used to identify gaps in planning and
implementation. The secondary data and discussion with the utility officials has helped
understand the point of view of end users and providers. While the sample size may be too small
to extrapolate, the village surveys and studies were instrumental in providing a snapshot of the
conditions on the ground. Data was collected from various sources, which resulted in problems in
comparing data sets that did not use the same scale.
32
Electricity Services in the State of Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh was the largest state in India and had the forth largest population until it was
bifurcated into two states, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, on 1 November 2000. The state
economy has shown robust growth averaging 4.4 percent since 1980/81, accelerating to 5 percent
during 1990/96. The contribution of the primary sector in state domestic product has declined
gradually over time and the contribution of services and industry has risen consistently. Similarly,
the share of manufacturing and construction has risen from 21.4 percent to 23.0 percent during
the same period. Despite its growth, MP is still one of the poorest states in India. In 1999/2000,
the per capita annual income was Rs 11,244 as compared with Rs 14,682 at the national level58.
The percentage of the population living below the poverty line was 37.4 in 1999/2000, much
higher than the national figure of 26.1 percent.
The 2001 census states that 97% of MP is electrified.59 The census data also shows that only
about 70% of households across the state use electricity as a primary source of lighting - 90% in
urban areas and about 60% in rural areas. Nearly 1.32 million pumps have been energized in the
state,60 which constitute 9.6% of all pump sets energized across the country.61
Key issues in current electricity services

Table 7 provides a snapshot of the state of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board’s
(MPSEB) service capacity. The accompanying map (Figure 5) provides district-wise data on
electrification.
Table 7. MPSEB figures

Generation Total (MW)
Installed Capacity 62
• Thermal 2272.5
• Hydro 835.0
• Mini/Micro hydel 5.45
• Total 3112.95
• Total generation in 2003-0463 15801.214 MkWh
Transmission64
Length of transmission lines in circuit kms 17951 Kms
Number of substations 158
Capacity in MVA 18801
Distribution
Total no of consumers65 6493541
Total connected load 8897864 kW
Total No of employees66 58774
Weighted average distribution losses- half 36.19%
early up to June 200567
58
http://www.mp.nic.in/des/es2001-10.htm. National figure from 1998-99
59
http://www.mp.nic.in/energy/mpseb/comapre.htm
60
61
62
http://www.mppgenco.nic.in/mpgenco-install-detail.htm
63
http://www.mp.nic.in/energy/mpseb/mpseb%20graph/Total-Generation-graph.htm
64
http://www.mptransco.nic.in/
65
http://www.mp.nic.in/energy/mpseb/mpseb%20graph/consumer-load-graph.htm
66
http://www.mp.nic.in/energy/mpseb/mpseb%20graph/Employment-graph.htm
67
http://mperc.org/losses-jul05-weighted.html
33
Figure 5. District-wise use of electricity as primary source of lighting
Source: FAO and Census 2001

Load Restrictions
The 2003-04 energy balance sheet68 shows that in addition to the load relief of 2,230 million
units, the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) undertook load shedding of 1,438
million units that year. Power demand grew by 6.4 percent in 1999-2000. According to the
SLDC69, while the registered maximum demand was 4,984 million units in January 2004, the
unrestricted maximum demand would be 6,033 million units during the same period.
Despite the sound operating performance70 of MPSEB generating plants, the peak demand-supply
gap in the state has been growing. This unserved demand results from planned (load relief) and
unplanned (load shedding) cuts. In response to the shortage, MPSEB resorts to load restrictions
for high tension, low tension, and rural consumers. According to the SLDC71 energy balance
sheet for the year 2003-04, while average supply at divisional headquarters ranged between about
20 to 23 hours, supply at the tehsil level varied from about 14 to 23 hours per day. Rural 3-phase
supply during the year, however, fluctuated from an average supply of 3.26 hours in January 2003
to about 23 hours in August 2003. Quality of supply has also suffered due to growing demand
and overloading of the transmission and distribution network; the transmission system was
operating at lower than normal frequency and voltage for over 50 percent of that year.
68
http://www.sldcmpindia.com/load_despatch/energy_balance_sheet_0304.htm
69
70
http://powermin.nic.in/reports/pdf/Rating%20of%20State%20Power%20Sector-January%202003.pdf
71
34
Private sector participation
In response to growing supply gap, the Government of Madhya Pradesh (GoMP) initiated a
policy to invite private power producers to enter into power purchase agreements with a total of
17 sponsors72. However, the IPPs have been finding it difficult to achieve financial closure due to
the insufficient escrow capacity of the MPSEB. The term escrow used here refers to the
deposition of the revenue stream from a specific revenue collection center, e.g., a distribution
unit, into a separate account in an identified bank, an escrow agent. In the power sector this
mechanism is mostly used to guarantee payment of an independent power producer, to whom the
primary claim on a revenue stream from a distribution zone is transferred or escrowed.
As per the MPSEB status on private sector participation in generation, of the 11 projects under
consideration aggregating 3308.9 MW of capacity addition, only 4 projects aggregating 1426
MW have achieved closure. The MPSEB also acknowledges 73 that 7 of the proposed 11 projects
are likely to depend upon the future escrow capacity of the MPSEB.
Tariff, subsidies and financial restructuring
The immediate reasons for the financial problems of MPSEB appear to be an outcome of the
GoMP policy to provide free power to single-point connections (un-metered connections intended
for operation of a single power outlet point only) in urban and rural areas and for agricultural
pump connections of up to 5 horsepower74. Moreover, GoMP instructed MPSEB to supply almost
free electricity to rural electricity cooperative committees (Rs .07 per kWh) and to pursue a
vigorous rural electrification program. This resulted in lopsided growth rates in the domestic and
primarily agriculture sectors at the expense of the industrial and commercial consumer categories.
Industrial consumption was 82.7 percent of total energy consumption in 1970-71, but dropped to
only 20 percent of consumption in 1999-2000. During the same period, the percentage of
agricultural consumption rose from 3.4 percent to 41 percent.
The situation has been corrected to some extent with the formation of the Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Regulatory Commission (MPERC) in 1998 and the subsequent passage of 3 tariff
orders emphasizing efficiency improvements and reduction in cross subsidy levels. The State
Power Sector Rating report of the MoP75 has highlighted the MPERC’s latest tariff order (2005-
06) as a key positive influence. The timing of such tariff orders, however, deprives the utility the
benefits of the revised tariffs for the full financial year76. With low levels of subsidy payments in
cash by the GoMP to the utility (about 45 percent) and estimated Aggregate Technical and
Commercial (AT&C) losses of 46 percent77 the finances of the restructured utilities are further
strained.
Utilities that default on loan payments to both the state government and external agencies is a
continuing cause for concern. The GoMP needs to resolve the issue of past liabilities as part of
72
Report and recommendation of the President to the board of directors on proposed loans to India for the
MP power sector development program, November 2001- ADB, MPSEB
73
http://www.mp.nic.in/energy/mpseb/private.htm
74
Report and recommendation of the President to the board of directors on proposed loans to India for the
MP power sector development program, November 2001- ADB, MPSEB
75
Power Sector Rating Consolidated Report to the Ministry of Power 2005, ICRA/CRISISL
76
In this case the MPERC passed the tariff order for 2004-05 in December 2004. The financial year in
India ends on March 31st
77
Power Sector Rating Consolidated Report to the Ministry of Power 2005, ICRA/CRISISL
35
the restructuring and unbundling exercise. The financial restructuring plan for the restructured
utilities, awaiting clearance form the GoMP, is expected to address a number of these issues.
System Losses
From 1994-95 to 1998-99, transmission and distribution (T&D) losses have varied within the
range of 19.6 percent to 20.9 percent. The State Power Sector Rating Report for 2005 has
estimated AT&C losses78 in the state at 46 percent and assigned the utility a score of 3.25 on a
maximum of 21 on T&D parameters. According to the tariff petition of 2005,79 the MPSEB has
achieved 100% metering at 33 KV (2,791 nos) and 11KV (5,726 nos) feeders. Furthermore, in
FY04 the utility generated a total of 14,523.56 million units and purchased an additional
14,035.32 million units. Despite this, of the aggregated 28,559 million units input into the system
during the year, sale was recorded for 15,996 million units, showing a loss of 44 percent.
The MPERC’s multi-year goals for reduction80 in losses are unlikely to be achieved. In FY04,
while the average cost of a unit sold was Rs. 4.03, the average revenue excluding subsidy was
only Rs. 3.42. Because subsidized sale accounts for 61.8 percent of all electricity sold and 33
percent81 of all electricity sold is un-metered, collections are minimized. The 2004 Management
and Information Systems (MIS) report of the MPSEB estimates that 22.7 percent of all consumers
are un-metered.
Conclusions
Despite noticeable progress, the sector’s financial variability and sustainability remain an area of
concern. The GoMP’s commitment to reform in the sector has been consistent but progress on
critical parameters including settlement of past arrears and unfunded pension liabilities requires
immediate attention. In addition, the efforts of the MPERC to rationalize the tariff structure needs
to be supplemented with the GoMP’s commitment to timely release of the full subsidy in cash.
The generation sector has shown the best performance since restructuring and the state
government has supported the growth in state-owned generation capacity by 18 percent (base
year 2002). However, in the absence of concrete actions to check the high AT&C losses, the
desired impact of restructuring and unbundling the MPSEB may continue to elude the consumer.
Raisen District
The district is comprisesd of 7 blocks, namely Sanchi, Gairatganj, Begumganj, Obedullahganj,

Silwani, Badi and Udaipur. Raisen is spread over an area of approximately 7,600 sq. km.
According to the 2001 Census data, the district supports a population of 197,496, with 82% of
households classified as rural. Around 50% of electricity usage across the district is attributed to
agriculture (Figure 6), illustrating the domination of irrigation in the district’s economy.
78
Power Sector Rating Consolidated Report to the Ministry of Power 2005 ,ICRA/CRISISL
79
http://mperc.org/TariffPetition05.pdf
80
http://mperc.org/Tariff%20Order%20ver%201.98.pdf page 23
81
http://mperc.org/Tariff%20Order%20ver%201.98.pdf page 58
36
Figure 7 provides a comparison of electricity use for lighting across state, district, tehsil, and
village levels. Table 8 describes distribution of households across the district according to
primary source of lighting. The last pair of bars represents the actual number of grid connections
in the villages surveyed by Earth Institute/TERI. According to the 2001 Census, about 71 percent
of all households in the district use electricity as their primary source of lighting, implying that an
equivalent percentage of households have a grid connection. The district-wide electrification
percentage mirrors statewide figures. But while 60 percent of rural households are electrified,
field studies in five villages conducted by the EI/TERI reveal that only about 45% of households
surveyed had a grid connection, painting a very different picture of electrification within the
district.
Figure 6. Electricity consumption by sector
Percentage consumption by various sectors in

Raisen
1%
0% 12%
1% Household
Commercial
Industrial
49% Irrigation
37% Water Supply
Street light
Source: Census 2001

Figure 7. Data from EI/TERI surveys and Census 2001 for village, tehsil, district and state.
% of HH using electricity as primary source of lighting
100
Total Census Data
90
Rural Our Survey
80
Urban
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MP State Raisen District Raisen Tehsil Surveyed Villages
Source: Census 2001, last bar EI survey 2005
Table 8. Distribution of HH by source of lighting

Raisen District
Source Electricity Kerosene Solar Other oil Other
% of households 70.8 28.7 0.2 0.1 0.0
Source: Census of India 2001
37
Ground Realities in Raisen Villages
The state of Madhya Pradesh is comprised of 55,841 villages. Five of these villages, Gadarwara,
Imaliya Gondi, Pati, Salahpur Surbarri, and Gurariya, were chosen by the EI for studies on
ground realities in the district. The five villages combined comprised of a total of 619 households
and have a combined population of 3,869 (demographic details are listed in Table 9). The primary
occupation in all of these villages is agriculture. The main crops grown in the villages are wheat,
gram, soybean, maize and tuar/arhar. The average yield across the villages is 12 quintals of wheat
per acre and 5 quintals of gram per acre. Table 10 summarizes the characteristics of sampled
villages in the Raisen district in relation to the amount of land owned. Of the surveyed
households, 14% own 2 - 4 ha of land, 47% own 1 - 2 ha, 14% own less than 1 ha, and 26% of
households are landless. Members of the 47 landless households work as agricultural or casual
labor for their sustenance. The unskilled wage rate for men and women is Rs.50/day. Few
villagers are involved in services or business.
According to the 1991 census, 1,462 of 55,841 villages in the state are un-electrified.82 Of all
rural households in the Raisen district, about 30% do not have electricity. Of all surveyed
households, 45% were electrified, and only 40% of those with electric connections have a
metered connection.83. The primary sources of lighting in the villages are kerosene lamps and
electricity. Table 11 breaks down the use of kerosene and electricity for lighting in each village.
Power service conditions are similar in all of the villages. Field study revealed that the electricity
supplied to these villages is highly erratic and often nonexistent for days at a time. At times the
voltage level is too low to light a light bulb, while other times high voltage causes damage to
appliances. Erratic and irregular power supply has led vexed villagers to justify suspending their
bill payments. No commercial activity which uses electricity has been developed in the villages,
partly due to the poor quality and unreliability of the power supplied.
Table 9. Demographic details of sample villages in Raisen District

Total % of Female Worker-
Name of SC\ST Literacy Working Populatio
Tehsil # of HH Populat Literac
Village Populati Rate Population n
ion y Rate
Gadarwara Silwani 43 256 57.42 0.449 0.352 146 0.570
Imaliya
Goharganj 76 403 84.62 0.524 0.435 188 0.467
Gondi
Pati Raisen 112 689 43.39 0.578 0.481 198 0.287
Gurariya Baraily 303 1943 16.88 0.435 0.321 701 0.360

Salahpur
Gairatganj 86 580 93.10 0.676 0.643 259 0.447
Surbarri
Raisen Rural
162,945 918,354 - 0.571 0.477 349984 0.381
District areas
Source: Survey conducted by the Earth Institute in April 2005
82
http://www.powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp accessed on May 31, 2005
83
Source: MPSEB, Raisen.
38
Table 10. Characteristics of surveyed villages in relation to land ownership
Category Unnao district Raisen district

Amount of land owned 0 ha < 1ha 1-2 ha 2-4 ha Total 0 ha < 1ha 1-2 ha 2-4 ha Total
Total no. of HHs 6 103 85 8 202 47 25 86 26 184
Total population 56 654 652 73 1435 281 184 611 226 1302
Avg. family size 9.3 6.35 7.67 9.13 8.11 5.98 7.36 7.11 8.69 7.29
Avg. land per landowning
0 0.62 1.27 2.02 0.98 0 0.53 1.39 2.02 0.99
families (in ha)
HHs having cement house %
42.9 35.9 40 50 42.2 2.1 3.5 3.8 19.2 7.2
of households
HHs having electricity
0.0 10.7 10.6 0.0 5.3 27.7 42.1 45.3 76.9 48.0
Connection (%)
Literacy rate (%) 85.7 63.8 67.6 55.1 68.1 64.8 76.1 78.1 79.2 74.6
Table 11. Source of lighting by village in Raisen district

84
Total no. Source of lighting %
Village Tehsil Block of HH Electricity Kerosene
Salahpur Surbarri Gairatganj Gairatganj 43 76.0 23.3
Imaliya Gondi Goharganj Obedullahganj 76 28.0 52.0
Gadarwara Silwani Silwani 43 88.4 0.0
Pati Raisen Sanchi 53 22.6 77.4
Gurariya Baraily Bari 280 42.1 57.1
Source: Customized data from the Census of India 2001 consultancy services
In the summer season, power supply is available for around 6-8 hours, while during the monsoon
and winter seasons power supply is available for about 10-12 hours. Power is mostly available in
the morning and afternoon regardless of the season. Electricity is generally unavailable in the
evenings, when it is most needed for lighting. During the cropping season, the duration of power
supply falls and is incredibly irregular. When asked why only a few people use energized , many
villagers explained that they must to take a temporary power connection for 3 months in order to
irrigate agricultural fields. Consequently, during the irrigation season (July and August) there is a
rush to apply for connections at the MPSEB office. The government administration is unable to
handle all applications at the last minute, leading to delays in allocation of connections. Due to
the unreliable nature of electricity service and complications in acquiring temporary connections,
villagers prefer diesel to electricity powered .
It is notable that villagers were clear about the specifics of their power problems, but were not at
all proactive in taking up issues with relevant agencies. They have resigned themselves to the
government’s plans to make necessary changes to the failing electricity services. It is also notable
that the wealthier segments of the community have easier access to both information and services.
This was obvious in the village Gurariya, where the harizan basti living conditions were pathetic
compared to other parts of the village. The harizan basti had no water source or electricity
connection, illustrating that, in this instance, the schemes targeting the most vulnerable segments
in society are, in fact, not benefiting them.
84
Customized data from the Census of India 2001
39
Electricity Services in the State of Uttar Pradesh
The northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) is the 4th largest state in the country (236,286 sq
km) with population of nearly 166 million,85 nearly equal to the population of all of western
Europe combined and greater than all other states in India. 86 UP is a politically important state
because it sends 80 members of a total of 543 to the Lok Sabha87. Nearly all of the prime
ministers of independent India have hailed from UP, and yet the state continues to lag behind the
national average of most development indicators. UP’s per capita income is about Rs. 6,500
against the national average of Rs. 11,900. Nearly 40% of the population lives below poverty
line.
Of the 97,122 villages in UP, 18,042 are un-electrified, leaving almost 80% of the population in
the dark. Approximately 25% of rural households use electricity for lighting across state. UP
contains about 841,951 energized pump sets, consuming 4951.63 GWh of power.
Despite political shifts, the momentum of electricity sector reforms has been largely maintained
throughout the evolution of the UP electricity sector. The erstwhile vertically integrated Uttar
Pradesh State Electricity Board has been trifurcated into three corporations: The UP Power
Corporation Limited (UPPCL), in charge of transmission and distribution, the UP Rajya Vidyut
Utpadan Nigam Limited (UPRVUNL), the operator of thermal generating facilities in the state,
and the UP Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (UPJVNL), the owner of hydro generating stations. The
Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation, (KESC) was also created to operate distribution in
Kanpur, but continues to operate as a state owned entity that buys power from UPPCL for supply
to Kanpur.
The GoUP announced a new power policy in December 2003 that is to remain in force till March
2009. The 3rd such policy in less than a decade, it delineates the state’s power sector objectives88:
• 100% metering by June 2004 (not achieved)

• Annual state outlay of 800 crores/annum for 100% rural electrification by 2009
• Minimum 14 hours of electricity supply/day to rural areas in the meantime
• Energy Task Force(ETF) headed by the Chief Secretary as a single window
empowered committee to grant all state level approvals
• The GoUP provides 7 year interest free loans for capital outlay between 150-
1500 crores in order to attract private investment in generation
• Targeted subsidies wherein GoUP directly compensates the consumer
Key issues in current electricity services

Table 12 provides a summary of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board’s service capacity. The
accompanying map (Figure 8) presents district-wise data on electrification.
85
Census 2001
86
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/indicators/indicators2.html, The population of western Europe is
183.4 million.
87
The Lok Sabha is the lower house of the Indian Parliament.
88
http://www.upgov.nic.in
40
Table 12. UPSEB at a glance
Total Customer base 89( 2003-04) 8,462,364
Per capita annual power consumption 316 kWh90
Total installed capacity MW 4,42591
Length of energized transmission lines, kms 2001-02 20,84292
T&D Losses93 32.8%
Collection efficiency 94 84%
ATC Losses95 +43.6%
Figure 8. District-wise use of electricity as primary source of lighting
Source: FAO and Census 2001
89
http://uppcl.org/commercial.htm- category wise consumer served
90
2002/03 Source TEDDY, 2003/04 as per UN methodology per capita consumption equals gross
generation/population
91
Includes Thermal 3909 & Hydel 516 MW only. UP Power Policy 2003 http://www.uppcl.org/niti.htm
92
http://www.uppcl.org/transmission.htm energized transmission lines
93
Estimated figure for FY 04.Source multi year performance UPPCL tariff order for FY 05
94
Estimated figure for FY 04.Source Performance Indicators UPPCL tariff order for FY 05
95
Estimated figure for FY 04.Source Performance Indicators UPPCL tariff order for FY 05
41
Privatization
While the GoUP has mapped out reforms that will encourage privatization of distribution
services, genuine concerns linger given the magnitude of the exercise yet to be undertaken. The
employees of the erstwhile UPSEB made their intentions clear during the 11 day strike in Jan
2000 to oppose the process of privatization.96 A similar situation arose again in December 2004
and January 2005, when employees opposed privatization of discoms and the sell-off of the
Anpara ‘C’ generating station. There have consequently been frequent disruptions of power
supply in the state.97 The commercial viability of UPPCL is also extremely poor at present and
the power sector rating report for the year 2005 has assigned the utility a score of 8 of 20 on
financial parameters.
Lack of resources and supply
UPSEB is bleeding and is facing a resource crunch. Once again, the primary reasons seem to be
flat tariff and un-metered consumption. The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL)
is suffering from high transmission and distribution loss, poor collection and high AT&C losses.
The problem in collection of tariffs is compounded by limited attempts at recovering arrears and
inadequate investment in metering, system improvement and capacity augmentation. Power
consumption (2667 kwh) in the state is greater than production (2280 crore kwh), creating a
power deficit. The PLF of state owned generating stations continue to remain below the national
average.
Unnao District
The Unnao district lies in the heart of the state between two major urban centers, Kanpur and
Lucknow. The state has a relatively high groundwater level, providing huge potential for pump
set-based irrigation. 4,214 state and 5,241 private tube wells have already been energized. The
household electrification rate is 9.81%. A measely 9.5% use electricity as the main source of
lighting, compared to 70.8% in Raisen, while most of the remaining population depends upon
kerosene (Table 13).
Table 13. Distribution of HH by source of lighting

Unnao District
Source Electricity Kerosene Solar Other oil Other
% of households 9.5 89.8 0.5 0.1 0.1
Source: Census of India 2001
Source: 2001 Census
Table 14 describes power consumption by activity. Electricity availability in rural areas from
2001-03 dropped from 9.82 to 9.55 hours, and from 13.78 to 13.3hours in urban areas. The fall in
per capita consumption is primarily is due to the drop in commercial light and small electric
power consumption from 8,560 units in 2000-01 to 5,401 units in 2002-03. Industrial electrical
power has fallen almost by half. The status of electricity based services in almost all villages
96
On concerns exist regarding the GPF( General Provident Fund) of the employees which has reportedly
been used by the UPSEB to fund new investments.
97
India Power Reforms Update, March 2005
42
where amenities are available has shown a downward trend with the exception of public water
supply.98
Table 14. Power consumption by various activities in the Unnao district99

Item 2000-01 2001-02
1 Domestic light & small electric power 36% 48%
2 Commercial light & small electric power 4% 6%
3 Industrial electric power 30% 22%
4 Public light system 1% 1%
5 Rail/Traction 0% 0%
6 Agricultural electric power 27% 23%
7 Public water supply 1% 1%
Total 100% 100%
Field level observation in surveyed Unnao villages revealed a lack of infrastructure and long
replacement periods for damaged equipment. Consumers were forced to endure the failure of
services for extended periods of time. Data gathered from the district in April 2005 shows that
almost 1.8% of transformers are damaged each month. At the time of the survey, almost 2.7% of
transformers were out of commission, and the repair rate was 44% per month. Box 4 describes
the scenario in one village in particular.
Box 4. Failures in the village Behta.

Field study conducted in the village Behta during in June 2005 revealed that the distribution
transformer (DT) had failed about 25 days prior to the team’s arrival. The villagers were aware
that the DT had failed on account of overloading; the DT of a nearby village had failed around
2 months prior and the utility had simply transferred the load to the DT serving Behta. The
villagers both collectively and individually had approached the utility officials in Unnao and
had submitted written complaints but were returned with assurances that the DT would be
replaced with receivables from stores in Lucknow.
Initial project team queries with the utility were met with a curt response that the DT in Behta
village was working. On being probed further, the utility conceded that the DT was indeed not
working. They acknowledged that they had a written complaint from the village but also
expressed helplessness with an average failure of nearly 3-4 DTs per day in the district and
lack of adequate resources from the SEB headquarters in Lucknow.
Of 4,789 DTs in the district 45 were not working at the beginning of the month, and an
additional 87 failed and were reported as not working later on. Only 58 of the total were
replaced or repaired during the month. The utility also reported that on an average it takes 15-
30 days to replace a DT and only 11% of the failed DTs were replaced in less than 7 days
during the month. In this case, personnel from the utility had not even visited the village to
assess the damage. The villagers recalled a similar transformer failure about 3 months before,
when the SEB had taken over 45 days to repair the transformer.
98
http://upgov.up.nic.in/engspatrika/qsystem/dtable2.asp accessed on June 17, 2005.
99
http://upgov.up.nic.in/engspatrika/tab47.asp?formd=31+Unnao&formy=0203 accessed on May 28, 2005
43
The joint interactions with the District Collector, Unnao, and the Divisional Engineer at the
UPPCL also revealed the lack of discretionary powers and autonomy at the district level to
upgrade electricity services. The DC under a discretionary quota for development had
sanctioned Rs 40 lakhs to the district SEB for distribution network strengthening. Yet despite
upfront transfer of money the local utility has not been able to utilize the said amounts as
procurement for utility requirements are done centrally from Lucknow. This has also created
some administrative friction between the district administration and the utility.
Source: From discussions with: DC Unnao Ms Anita Chaterjee IAS, Divisional Engineer UPPCL Mr. Rashid Abrar
and the villagers of Behta- June 2005 & August 2005
Ground Realities in Unnao Villages

Five villages, Baruaghat, Behta, Bilahaor, Digvijayapur, and Majharia, across five tehsils in the
Unnao district were chosen by the Earth Institute for a study of ground realities in the district.
Table 15 outlines the village population, electrification status and other demographic data for the
sampled villages. The five villages combined are comprised of a total of 1,157 households and
have a combined population of 6,910. Table 10 in a previous section summarizes the
characteristics of sampled villages in Unnao districts in relation to the amount of land owned. In
the surveyed Unnao villages, 3% of households are landless, 51% own less than 1 ha, 42% own
1-2 acre of land, and 4% own 2 - 4 ha. As is the case in Raisen, members of the 6 landless
households work as agricultural or casual labor for their sustenance.
Table 15. Demographic details of sample villages in Unnao District
Demographic Details of Sample Villages in Unnao District

% of Female Worker-
Name of Total SC\ST Literacy Working
Tehsil # of HH Population
Literacy Population
Village Populati Rate Population
Rate Ratio
Baruaghat Safipur 364 2009 41.70 0.434 0.259 796 0.396
Behta Unnao 430 2731 29.50 0.546 0.473 1037 0.380
Bilahaor Hasanganj 100 510 88.80 0.276 0.176 310 0.608
Digvijaipur Bighapur 79 600 0.00 0.582 0.419 248 0.413
Majharia Purwa 184 1062 27.90 0.417 0.272 354 0.333

Unnao
Rural 407,323 2,288,781 - 0.425 0.309 814741 0.356
District
Figure 9 compares the percentages of households electrified on the state, district, and block levels
against the percentage of villages electrified from the actual sample surveyed by the EI/TERI
team. While state level rural electrification is nearly 30 percent in UP, only 8 percent of surveyed
village households were electrified. This partly reflects the fact that only three sets of samples
from the five villages had access to electricity. In two villages, hamlets that were unelectrified
44
were chosen for the survey. In the three villages that are electrified - Digvijaipur, Baruaghat and
Behta – combined Census data shows that 90.5% of households use kerosene as the main source
of lighting, 7.4% use electricity, and 2.1% use solar lighting systems. Primary data highlighted
the presence of illegal connections in the villages where the electricity infrastructure existed.
Figure 9. Data from EI/TERI surveys and Census 2001 for village, tehsil, district and state
% of HH using electricity as primary source of lighting
90
80
Total Census Data
70
Urban Our Survey
60
Percentage
Rural
50
40
30
20
10
0
Uttar Pradesh State Unnao District Unnao Tehsil Surveyed Villages
Source: Census 2001, last bar EI survey 2005
Issues in electricity service delivery: electrified villages
Access to electricity services was poor in all three electrified villages. Obtaining an electricity
connection was found to be quite expensive due to the high upfront costs (Rs. 700+). Additional
investments included ‘facilitation costs’ of Rs. 100-500 for application approval. Even when paid,
there was no guarantee when the connection would be installed and no standard for the quality of
service. A substantial number of villagers were thus discouraged from pursuing a connection at
all.
It was estimated that power was available on an average 4-5 hours a day in Baruaghat and 1-2
hours a day at Behta, at intermittent levels, at low voltage (80-100V on average). Blow-outs were
a persistent problem. Almost 100 connections existed in Behta, but no bills had been paid for
years regardless of the nominal flat billing rate of Rs. 150 per month. There was no mention of a
metered domestic connection in any of the three electrified villages. Lack of infrastructure, slow
response of the state utility, poor conditions of the distribution system, high rates of transformer
failure and the indifference of the local utility officials toward repair were some of the issues
highlighted by the Behta and Baruaghat residents.
In the village Digvijaipur, the team found that electricity connections in the village were used
only for water pumping for agricultural uses. None of the households had a grid connection even
though the distribution network had been extended to the village. Though there was a demand for
household connections, the primary concern expressed by villagers was the high upfront
45
connection cost. Problems related to the lack of maintenance of the distribution network and the
lack of redressal of grievances seen in neighboring villages were also cited. For example,
villagers were expected to arrange transport for utility employees to come to the village as well as
transport the transformer and other equipment themselves.
Issues in electricity service delivery: un-electrified villages
In both of the electrified and un-electrified villages the primary source of lighting was the soot-
producing kerosene lantern (dhibri). Most households used 4-6 liters of kerosene per month with
the lower and upper limits hovering around 2-4 and 6-8 liters per month per household. Kerosene
supply in the villages was met through the PDS outlet @ Rs 10.25 per liter. However, in Behta
surveys revealed that though the average supply was between 2-4 liters, certain influential
residents received as much as 22 liters per month. Two heads of household admitted to this, albeit
offering the excuse of having a large family. Box 4 provides a detailed discussion of transformer
failures in Behta.
A typical example of conditions observed during the field visits was the electrification of village
Majharia. Majharia electricity poles and a single phase line had been laid in 2003. No domestic
connections were installed by the villagers as they felt that “the installation cost is too high due to
levy of unauthorized charges; it is beyond our reach.”100 Such corruption deters villagers from
pursuing a bad needed grid connection and further debilitates rural electrification reforms.
Other areas where demand for electricity exists
Demand for electricity exists in the form of agriculture and small enterprise. In Majharia,
electricity was available only for business purposes, which were in fact limited by the
unavailability of electricity. In Behta, two flour mills (around 10 hp) and an oil expeller (7.5 hp)
were run on diesel, which could easily be shifted to electricity to make the operation more
profitable for the entrepreneur. Other demand exists for lighting and associated uses in the form
of small shops and the dairy business.
Field observations highlighted that villagers regularly spent time and money on recharging
batteries from the nearest market. These batteries were used for operating a number of devices,
including radios, fans, and televisions. Although no electricity service was delivered, appliances
and services that consume electricity were nonetheless in use, illustrating that villagers relied on
alternative methods of obtaining the requisite energy.
100
Field survey – TERI team June 2005.
46
Section V: Scaling up rural electrification in India
Impediments to scaling up
Large numbers of HH with no electricity
Going by the current rate of electrification nationally about 1 million new connections are added
each year, whereas the annual growth in households is 1.85 million. Approximately 78 of the 138
million rural households do not have access to electricity services. With the number of
households likely to grow to 157 million by 2012, in order to achieve the goal of electrifying all
rural households would imply that about 97 million households would have to be electrified by
2012 or about 10 million household per year (based on 2002 figures). This implies an order of
magnitude higher rate of electrification.
Lack of capacity
There appears a lack of adequate and properly trained manpower at the district level. For instance
in Unnao district of UP the erstwhile UPSEB had a sanctioned listing for 25 Junior Engineers
(JE’s) but as of today there are only 11 JE’s of which 3 are scheduled to retire shortly. The other
aspect relates to linemen and meter readers who have not been hired by the department for a long
time (Unnao and Raisen). With the restructuring of the SEB and pressure on Divisional Engineers
to show recoveries the short route is either a preference for ‘Bulk buyers’ with a dedicated feeder
and/or disconnection to rural consumers.
At the same time utilities either have limited equipment and operational resources like vehicles
and block and tackle which need to be hired if a transformer has to be taken down. Most meter
readers/ linesmen use bicycles. For moving equipment the customers are usually asked to bear
costs.
Shortage of material is also a chronic problem and a bottleneck in the speedy implementation of
RE programs. This shortage is usually of materials such as conductors, aluminum, cement, steel
and insulators. It is only after the funds are received that the order for material is sent to the
supplier. Release of funds through the central government, state government, utility head quarters
route takes time, causing delay and implementation problems at the SDO level.
Lack of adequate infrastructure with the SEBs: While the expectations from the utility run sky
high; consumers, the district administration; the infrastructure available with the local utilities
leaves a lot to be desired. The district level utility offices visited by the project team were in a bad
shape; mostly rented premises, poorly lit and not well ventilated. In fact the utility offices which
were visited by the project team on a number of occasions (3 times each of the utility offices in
Unnao), and not once was the grid supply on. More disturbing was the fact that the offices had no
back-up /generator service (in UP). The project team also found most field offices especially the
SDO extremely shabby, there was no proper organization of information and information was
sent up the hierarchy on a piece of paper (most of these were scribbled applications sent by a
villagers coming to the office). Office conditions are mostly very dingy, infrastructure is limited,
no support service like (copier) or staff is available as no new recruits have been hired for the last
few years (in UP no meter readers have been hired since 1989)
47
Past use of APDRP funds even when available is found to be low. In fact the ratio of utilized to
sanctioned funds was below 10% for U. P. when the need was perhaps the greatest there. Figure
10 and Figure 11 below show the relationship with both the existing levels of household
electrification and with income in all major states.
Figure 10. APDRP funds utilized and HH electrification
APDRP Funds Utilized/Project Costs

and Household Electrification
100%
90%
80%
Tamil Nadu
70%
Karnataka
Percentage Funds Used
60%
Andhra Pradesh Gujarat
50%
Rajasthan
Haryana
40%
Himachal Pradesh
Chattisgarh Uttaranchal
30%
Jharkhand West Bengal Punjab
Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
20% Bihar
Kerala
Uttar Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir
10%
Orissa Assam
0%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Percentage Household Electrification
Source: APDRP documents and Census data
Figure 11. APDRP funds utilized and per capita GDP
APDRP Funds Utilized/Santioned Project Costs and Per

Capita GDP by State
100%
90%
80% Tamil Nadu
P e rc e n ta g e F u n d s U s e d
Karnataka
70%
Gujarat
60% Andhra Pradesh
Rajasthan Haryana
50%
40% Uttaranchal Himachal Pradesh
Chattisgarh West Bengal Punjab
30% Jharkhand
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh Kerala Maharashtra
20%
Uttar Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir
10% Assam
Orissa
0%
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Per Capita Income (Rs)
Source: APDRP documents and Census data
48
Franchisee development
The RGGVY scheme anticipates two types of decentralization: 1) Commercial decentralization,

e.g. tariff collection, and 2) Technical decentralization, e.g. maintenance of distribution. The idea
is that individual businesses (or NGOs or co-operatives for that matter) will become profit centers
that are locally run. To move towards a decentralized, competitive market, SEBs must aid in this
effort to create district-level or village profit centers that manage distribution. The low uptake of
funds in the past may point to capacity constraints in electrification planning, working with
suppliers/contractors, project preparation, implementation and monitoring within the district level
staff. Perhaps recognizing this constraint, the REC and MoP encourage franchisee development
for the maintenance of distribution systems and for the collection of tariffs at the village level.
However envisioning that “tens of thousands of franchisees are created within the next 3 to 5
years seeking enlarged role and opening immense business opportunities” (Chairman of REC101)
is a task of Herculean proportions. It will require managerial and technical capacity to engage
with franchisees, defining business rules and executing contracts, inspection of installation,
verification of delivery of service to standards, performance monitoring, legal expertise,
establishing bulk power purchase agreements with generators with fuel cost provisions,
minimizing the risks and lowering transaction costs in general. We recommend that a small
fraction (say one percent) of the RGGVY scheme be set aside for capacity building, information
dissemination and franchisee development and that this activity is critical to the success of the
scheme.
Agricultural Sector Reforms

Success in electricity services in the agricultural context depends upon a number of inter-related
factors including reorganizing SEBs, rethinking subsidies, tariff rates, and metering. When
efficient, accurate metering of all is not yet possible, reforms should focus on other methods that
will support agriculture effectively.
The Energy -Water Nexus
An issue of extreme importance to both energy and water sustainability in India is the relationship
between electricity and groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation. Groundwater and energy
economies are inextricably linked in the Indian context as India has emerged as the largest
extractor of groundwater in the world, pumping 250 cubic km of groundwater a year.102
Groundwater irrigation has helped almost all nations in the South Asian region achieve self-
sufficiency, and has contributed to the creation of wealth in rural areas. 103While a thriving
groundwater economy has invigorated rural economies, such high and unregulated extractions of
groundwater seriously threaten the sustainability of the groundwater economy itself. Additionally,
pumping large amounts of water has serious environmental implications whose effects are not
immediately recognizable. Water and energy resources have become interdependent requires an
in-depth review of the inter-dependence of the energy and water sectors in India - an idea termed
the “Energy-Water Nexus”104.
101
Powering Rural India, Speech of the Chairman of REC at the 36th Annual General Meeting held on
September 22nd 2005.
102
Narayana, 2004
103
Shah, 2003
104
Shah, 2003
49
The agricultural sector has been widely blamed for one of the reasons for the lack of financial
health of SEBs and for retarding the growth of India’s power sector on the whole. Reforming
electricity use in the agricultural sector is thorny and involves striking a balance between
satisfying the economic needs of the farmers, small and large, and the electricity provider.
While data for actual use of electricity for agriculture pumping is hard to come by, it appears that
diesel pump sets are used for fewer hours per year compared for electric pumps across India.
Figure 12from Shah (1003) plots the results of a survey of 2,234 tubewell irrigators across India
and Bangladesh in late 2002, showing that electric tubewell owners paying a flat tariff operated
their pumps for 40-250 percent greater hours per year as compared to diesel tubewell owners.
These numbers are not indicative of a proportionate additional water flow or agricultural output
but they do provide some qualitative evidence that electric pump sets while may be leading to
some additional output may lead to wasteful use of electricity at no or low additional costs.
Figure 12. Duration of pump operation by owners of electric and diesel pump sets
Duration of pump operation by owners of electric and diesel pumpsets

1400
1217
Duration (hours of pumping per year)
1200 1131
1046 1030 1057
1000
825 846
800
661
600 560
462 463
404
400 346
200 130
0
North India Eastern Tribal India Western Internal Coastal Bangladesh
India India Peninsular India
India
Annual duration (hours) of operation---diesel
Annual duration (hours) of operation---electric
Source: Shah, 2003 (primary survey of 2,234 tubewell irrigators in the year 2002).
In the study entitled The Energy-Irrigation Nexus in South Asia: Improving Groundwater
Conservation and Power Sector Viability (Shah et al 2002), the authors point out that the
agricultural sector use of electricity is comprised of approximately 14 million tube-wells.
Metering is indeed the long term goal, even if agriculture tariffs are subsidized since metering
allows for quantifiable supply to agriculture, a necessary condition for a transparent subsidy
mechanism. In the short term however it may be advisable to adopt the above report’s
recommendation that it is better to transform current pricing (generally subsidized flat tariffs) and
supply (generally erratic and undependable and hence actually prone to frequent breakdowns,
excessive use and possible detrimental to both groundwater and the crop) into a system of timed,
reliable scheduled delivery of electricity for agriculture that would be in accordance with local
agricultural needs and soil moisture conditions. This strategy would address the needs of farmers;
and provide a path for gradual transition to cost-recovery. In un-metered regimes one could
50
easily reduce supply hours from the 3,000 hours per year to 1,000 hours per year while still
meeting the agriculture needs effectively increasing the cost-recovery even with the same flat
tariff.
As and when metering of pump sets becomes regionally feasible, one could transition to a tariff
regime that allows a low rate for “lifeline” electricity consumption levels that correspond to the
demands and sustainable water yields of small farmers in a region. This would then pave the way
for charging higher rates beyond the lifeline levels to farmers who may be growing high-value
water-intensive crops. So if a household owning 2 acres of land needs 1000 kWh (e.g. a 5 hp
pump for 250 hours a year) of supplementary pumping beyond water requirements met by
monsoon rains for a Kharif crop, that household could be given a smart card for an agriculture
pump set meter with a built in low rate of say one rupee per off-peak kWh for the initial “lifeline”
consumption level of 500 kWh/acre i.e. for 1000 kWh at 1000 rupees. This could also be
administered in smaller incremental payments if needed. Moreover the same meter could be used
for electricity consumption beyond “lifeline” levels at higher cost-recovery tariffs.
This approach will require that determining tariffs by working closely with agricultural and water
experts to determine minimum water needs of smallholder farmers and corresponding electricity
needs. A strategy for proactive management of rationed power supply will assist in allowing
transparent accounting, reducing commercial losses due to bill collection, reduce groundwater
depletion caused by over-pumping and possible even increase farmer satisfaction with the utility
if reliability of supply is dramatically improved.
A region specific approach to reforms
There are considerable disparities among states in the level of metering, income from agriculture
and the reliance on groundwater for agriculture. The use of electricity as opposed to diesel for
agricultural pumping is itself regional as seen in Figure 13, where the proportion of pump sets
that are electric in any district is shown. The actual availability of reliable supply, socioeconomic
status of farmers, agricultural conditions, crops grown and groundwater use changes across states,
electricity reforms and the particular approach to agriculture electric supply (tariffs and whether
they should be metered immediately or not) should likewise take on a nuanced approach.
Electricity provision targets (how much, when) and tariffs should reflect that changes from
current pricing would have to ensure that the farmers, especially the smaller farmers are not
severely impacted in the short term. This will require close co-ordination of the agricultural,
water and energy sectors, along with a campaign that would promote the benefits of such an
approach to utilities, farmers and consumers from other sectors.
51
Figure 13. Percentage of electricity operated groundwater structures to total mechanized
groundwater structures, 1993-94
% Electric pumps
Source: Shah, 2003
Household metering and reforms

It is worth noting at the outset that in practice where poorer households are under flat rate regime
for un-metered supply, the combination of unreliable supply and low hours of service may
actually put the poor effectively in a regressive high tariff regime. So when a low-income
household receives 2 hours of supply during evening hours and consuming 100 Watts of power
only during those evening hours and receiving 5 hours of supply during the day when the
consumption could be as 40 Watts, pays a flat rate of 100 rupees a month, they are effectively
paying a tariff of about 8 rupees a kWh. This does not include the cost of damaged appliances
from poor quality of supply. A household with much higher consumption levels under the same
flat tariff regime is effectively paying a much lower tariff. This mix of consumers and the high
cost of meter reading, billing and collection can create a loose-loose trap for the utility and will
continue to do so for a franchisee as well. Moreover this regime has no incentives for energy
efficiency either.
52
An approach described above for metering of agriculture can also in principle be used for
household supply. A region-specific approach can be devised keeping in mind the short-term
politically acceptable tariff structure and technical/human current capacity constraints of the
utility as well as the longer term goals of EA 2003 and RGGVY. The status of metering is shown
in Table 16 (from the Ministry of Power’s Ninth Report on the APDRP) for each state. Half of
the states and union territories represented show a 90% or higher rate of meters installed per total
consumers. While this may indeed be accurate, the site specific surveys we carried out in MP and
UP paints a very different picture (see Table 17). In Raisen district of MP only 40% of
households with a grid connection had a meter installed. This falls much below the statewide
statistic of 72% of consumers electrified in MP. In Unnao district, only 14.3% of households with
a grid connection had a meter installed as compared with the statewide MoP’s figure of 91% of
consumers electrified in UP.
In the short term where timed supply inevitable and smart metering is expensive, low cost load
limiters, including products such as the LRA and LRM current limiters designed especially for
the rural electrification context105, allow the utility company to limit consumption of electricity
and impose a pre-set value defined by the distribution company. This technology allows the
implementation of fixed tariff bills with limited consumption and billing without the use of
meters.
New franchisees areas where there is little existing household coverage could transition to smart
metering in the household sector reducing/eliminating meter reading and billing. Such metering
could also reduce theft. Utility providers should install metering at 11 kV feeder and distribution
transformer levels to allow proper auditing of power supply. Feeders would then be operated
using principles of “stand-alone business units” that would be accountable for the quality of
power service, metering, billing and collection. This can be implemented immediately in the new
125,000 villages to be electrified providing a cost-effective jump-start of the program is initiated.
It is critical though again with this approach that low initial levels of consumption are charged at
a lower lifeline rate.
Smart cards have been successfully used in South Africa as an alternative form of metering and
payment. Smart cards are pre-paid cards that the consumer inserts into a specialized meter for
connection at the household level. Smartcards eliminate the need for metering or meter reading,
and allow consumers to monitor energy use and their expenditure on electricity.106
105
For a description of specific products see Neumayer, 2004
106
Gaunt, 2005
53
Table 16. Metering status figures - MoP, ARDRP Ninth Plan, 2005
11 kV Feeders Consumers in lakhs
State 2004-05 2001-02
Number Meters % Number Meters %
1 AP 7401 7401 100 198.60 181.20 91
2 Arunachal Pradesh 201 1 0 1.13 0.52 46
3 Assam 708 708 100 11.77 10.56 90
4 Bihar 1125 465 41 12.50 6.23 50
5 Chattisgarh 1293 918 71 22.13 14.19 64
6 Delhi 1850 1850 100 26.65 26.65 100
7 Goa 179 179 100 3.96 3.86 97
8 Gujarat (GEB) 5307 5307 100 74.77 69.57 93
Gujarat (Torrent / Surat) 5.2 5.2 100
9 Haryana 3888 3888 100 39.17 36.12 92
10 HimachalPradesh 726 651 90 16.46 16.46 100
11 Jammu&Kashmir 1558 630 40 10.00 4.00 40
12 Jharkand 461 396 86 6.53 4.02 62
13 Karnataka 4570 4570 100 128.89 105.68 82
14 Kerala 1320 1320 100 74.19 74.19 100
15 Madhya Pradesh 5660 5660 100 64.92 46.50 72
16 MaharashtraMSEB 8146 8146 100 135.32 118.12 87
Maharashtra REL 598 147 25 23.73 23.73 100
17 Manipur 193 40 21 1.70 1.40 82
18 Meghalaya 175 170 97 1.68 0.84 50
19 Mizoram 127 92 72 1.28 1.23 96
20 Nagaland 164 66 40 1.88 1.14 61
21 Orissa 1723 1475 86 21.49 17.45 81
22 Punjab 5928 5928 100 58.36 49.08 84
23 Rajasthan 8411 8411 100 58.45 54.78 94
24 Sikkim 113 55 49 0.60 0.52 87
25 Tamilnadu 3508 3508 100 161.33 131.25 81
26 Tripura 197 197 100 2.28 1.84 81
27 UP 8507 8507 100 88.06 80.38 91
28 Uttaranchal 743 743 100 9.01 8.14 90
29 W. Bengal 2347 2347 100 47.27 45.89 97
30 Chandigarh 174 174 100 1.97 1.97 100
31 Daman/Diu 51 51 100 0.52 0.52 100
32 Pondicherry 89 89 100 2.19 2.11 96
Total 77744 74393 96 1313.99 1145.34 87
54
Table 17. Household connections and meters installed in sample villages
Category Raisen District Unnao District
Total no. HH surveyed 190 208
No. of HH surveyed that are in electrified villages 152 120
No. of HH with grid connections 81 21
No. of HH with meter installed 32 3
Source: Primary survey conducted by the Earth Institute, 2004
Other household sector approaches for rural electrification

There have been successful rural electrification programs in Tunisia and South Africa
that demonstrate that the use of appropriate standards, through a large-scale mission-
oriented approach, and use of a combination of load limiters, smart meters, prepaid cards,
and community billing techniques can make rural electrification succeed in reducing
costs per connection, increasing the efficiency of billing and other aspects of
management, and otherwise establishing a set of best practices to be studied in future
planning (see Boxes below).
Box 5. Tunisia’s rural electrification program
A recent program undertaken by the Tunisia Electricity and Gas Company (STEG) achieved
dramatic cost savings, which in turn contributed to a remarkable rate of cost-effective electricity
grid expansion (Cecelski, 2004). As part of a multisectoral approach to the extension of a range of
infrastructure and services to rural communities, Tunisia’s electrification program expanded
services from 6 percent of the population in 1976 to 88 percent in 2001, including bringing
electricity to 35 percent of people living in rural areas. The technical strategy of the program was
to use a combination of three-phase and single-phase power lines, preferentially extending less
expensive single-phase wire to rural communities. This approach saved an estimated 30–40
percent over the cost of medium voltage (MV) lines, 15–20 percent on MV/LV substations, and
18–24 percent on the system overall relative to what the same expansion would have cost with the
previous ratio of MV and LV lines. In addition, the Tunisian program carried out other aggressive
cost-cutting measures, such as use of single wire earth return (SWER) design, shorter poles
(saving 20 percent on cost), equipment standardization, and bulk buying. Administrative
innovations, such as decentralized planning and improved corporate management practices,
contributed to efficiency at the institutional level. As an indication of the program’s success,
Tunisia has set rural electrification for all as a minimum standard for public service and has set a
goal of 100 percent electrification, through a variety of grid-based and off-grid technologies, by
2010. Source: Modi, 2005
55
Box 6. South Africa’s rural electrification program
South Africa’s national electrification program showed similar successes to Tunisia, driving
down costs of both connections and payment schemes by reducing administrative overhead and
loss. Electrification in South Africa grew from about 36 percent of households in 1990 to 67
percent in 2000, with more than 3 million new customers. Dramatic reductions in the capital
investment costs per customer of rural electrification suggest that appropriately planned rural
systems need not be much more expensive than urban systems (Gaunt 2005). Between 1996 and
2001, the national average cost per rural electric connection decreased by 40 percent in current
terms and 70 percent after taking into account inflation, eventually becoming the same as an
urban connection cost. The savings were achieved by adopting designs that match the network
technology and capacity more closely to the requirements of the customers (greater application of
single-phase instead of the traditional three-phase distribution at medium and low voltage), broad
application of prepayment metering, and revised industry standards and implementation
procedures. Using low-capacity, low-cost grid connections, South Africa's rural electrification
program can supply substantially more energy than photovoltaic systems for a similar or lower
cost. The South African experience with prepayment metering is a development of significant
note, since this can allow consumers to purchase a service in small quantities and at the same time
ensure low cost of bill collection. These payment methods dramatically reduce the fraction of
costs that are purely administrative for servicing a household with low consumption.
From these and other examples, a wealth of knowledge is now accumulating regarding best
practices in structuring the roles of government, investors and donors, service provider
institutions, and NGOs. Some of these are lowering or eliminating tax burdens; standardization
and certification of systems; supporting programs for training in the design, maintenance, and
safe use of these systems; and credit and delivery mechanisms.
The 1.6 billion people worldwide who are without electricity access may take heart in the
examples set by Tunisia, (See Box 1) where the electrification program expanded service from 6
percent of the population in 1976 to 88 percent in 2001; Morocco, where electrification rates
reached 72 percent in 2004 (Morocco, Office National de l’Electricity); and China, where
electrification rates reached 97 percent in 2004, thanks to sustained political commitment, public
funding that combined domestic resources and borrowings from the Development Banks and
other sources, and effective cost recovery tariffs and mechanisms from users.
Source: Modi 2005
Power Generation and Privatization
Rural electrification will place additional demands on power generation. This additional demand
on power generation must be estimated and brought within the planning envelope of the MoP.
This additional demand will be region specific and while financing for a robust distribution
network will have to be public (regardless of who actually operates/maintains the distribution),
there would be significant private sector interest in generation as per EA 2003 rules.
Increased generation capacity is likely to derive from a diverse set of sources through multiple
different institutional and financial arrangements. India has the unique advantage of high
population densities in rural areas, endowing it with the unique advantage that the country can
benefit from economies of scale derived from power generation at scale. The EA 2003 provides
the proper framework for increasing generation capacity and a long-term sustained adherence to
56
the terms of the act can addresses the proper incentives needed to ultimately allow multiple
entities to provide electricity through varied means of generation and institutional arrangements.
While reducing losses and encouraging energy conservation/efficiency are very cost-effective
means to increase availability of power, in the short term, the human resources required to
achieve a substantial transformation of this nature is likely to be difficult. One attractive
proposition is to ensure that new household connections if metered are simultaneously offered
energy efficient lighting at below cost.
A report on privatization and power sector reforms prepared by The Energy Resources Institute in
Delhi (TERI) is attached in the Appendix.
57
References
Akhtar, Mujeeb; and Asad Sarwar Qureshi, Tushaar Shah. (2003) ‘The Groundwater Economy of
Pakistan’, Working Paper #64. International Water Management Institute: Battaramulla, Sri
Lanka.
Akhtar, Mujeeb; and Asad Sarwar Qureshi. (2003) “Impact of Utilization Factor on the
Estimation of Groundwater Pumpage” Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol. 7, No. 1, pg.
17-27, January-June 2003.
Barnes, Douglas F. (2005) ‘Draft for Discussion: Meeting the Challenge of Rural Electrification
in Developing Nations, The Experience of Successful Programs,’ ESMAP.
Batra, S.; and A. Singh (2003) “Evolving Proactive Power Supply Regime for Agricultural Power
Supply,” International Water Management Institute: Anand, India.
Bhattacharyya, Subhes C. ‘Energy access problem of the poor in India: Is rural electrification a
remedy?’ Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee,
Scotland, UK.
Celeski, Elizabeth; and Moncef Aissa. (2004) ‘Low Cost Electricity and Multisector
Development in Rural Tunisia.’ World Bank Energy Lecture Series: Washington DC.
‘Electricity in India: Providing Power for the Millions’ (2002) International Energy Agency and
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD/IEC: Paris.
Gaunt, C. T. Meeting electrification's social objectives in South Africa, and implications for
developing countries. Energy Policy, Volume 33, Issue 10, July 2005, Pages 1309-1317.
Government of India, (2002). Annual Report 2001-02, On the Working of State Electricity
Boards & Electricity Departments. New Delhi, Planning Commission.
Government of India, Ministry of Power (2005) Standing Committee on Energy APDRP Ninth
Report: Delhi.
Iyer, R. Ramaswamy. (2003) ‘Water: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns.’ Sage publications: New
Delhi.
Modi, Vijay; and Dominique Lallement, Susan McDade, Jamal Sagar. (2005) Energy and the
Millennium Development Goals. Millennium Project Report, New York, 2005. Available from
www.unmillenniumproject.org
Shah, Tushaar; and Christopher Scott, Avinash Kishore, and Abhishek Sharma. (2003) ‘Energy-
Irrigation Nexus in South Asia: Improving Groundwater Conservation and Power Sector
Viability.’ Research Report # 70. International Water Management Institute: Battaramulla, Sri
Lanka.
Tongia, Rahul. (2003) ‘Stanford-CMU Indian Power Sector Reform Studies,’ unpublished.
58
Water Aid. (2005) ‘Status of Drinking Water and Sanitation in India: Coverage, Financing and
Emerging Concerns.’ Water Aid India: New Delhi.
World Bank. (1999) ‘Rural Water Supply and Sanitation- South Asia Rural Development Series.’
Allied Publishers: New Delhi.
World Bank (2003). ‘Why Are Power Sector Reforms Important for the Poor?’ The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: New Delhi.
Web resources
Census of India. (2001c). Primary Census Abstract- Uttar Pradesh. Registrar general of India:
New Delhi.
Census of India. (2001d). Primary Census Abstract- Madhya Pradesh. Registrar general of India:
New Delhi.
Planning Commission. (2004). Report on village level evaluation study.

http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/ser/stdy_villgeval.pdf accessed on May 21,
2005.
World Bank. (2005). World Development Indicators.

http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2005/wditext/Section2.htm accessed on October 5, 2005.
59
Appendix 1. Privatization of the power sector107
The following section discusses power sector reforms in the states of Orissa and Delhi.
Orissa
In 1997, the generation capacity in the state of Orissa was insufficient to meet growing demand.
Energy deficits were recorded at 23.9% and 7% respectively in 1997, when the national averages
were estimated at 18.8% and 7.8% respectively108. The plant load factor of Orissa's generating
stations declined to 29% in 1994-95 compared to the national average of 60%. The financial
performance of the Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) was deteriorating and the gap between
average cost of supply and average tariff was increasing109. The OSEB was also becoming
increasingly dependent on government subsidies.
Orissa was the first state in the country to pursue comprehensive restructuring and reform of the
electricity sector. This process of restructuring began with the Orissa Electricity Reform Act,
1995 and specifically the unbundling of the OSEB into generation, transmission and distribution
entities. This was followed by the corporatization, commercialization and privatization of the
distribution entities and the creation of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC).
The new structure of the power sector after the reform process is illustrated below:
Figure A. Structure of the power sector after the reform process
Independent Gridco purchases power Distribution

generation sources from independent Companies
generators and provides
bulk supply to
NTPC independent Discoms
WESCO Customers
OHPC
NESCO Customers
OPGC GRIDCO
Transmission
SOUTH Customers
CO
IPPs
Customers
CESCO
CPPs
Source: Overview of Reforms in Orissa, ICRA
107
The reforms sections are cited from TERI report 2004RP28 ‘Power Sector Study in India’ submitted to
the Japan Bank for International Cooperation(JBIC) in May 2005
108
TERI Publication; Privatization of Electricity Distribution: The Orissa Experience: K Ramanathan,
Shahid Hasan
109
The gap between average cost of supply and average tariff rose from 8 paise in 1989/90 to 18 paise in
1991/92 (World Bank 1996; OSEB Annual Reports)
60
Table A. Performance Rating of the Power Sector in Orissa
Parameters Maximum Score Score Assigned
State Government Related Parameters 17 2.00

SERC Related Parameters 15 5.63
Business Risk Analysis 27 4.00
-Generation 6 1.50
-Transmission & Distribution 21 2.50
Financial Risk Analysis 20 2.00
Others 5 -
Progress in attaining commercial viability 16 -
Total 100 13.63

Source: Power Sector Rating. Consolidated report to the Ministry of Power March 2005.
Prepared by ICRA Limited and CRISIL Ratings
Many problems arose during the Orissa reform process:

• The entire capacity added in the last few years has been carried out by the state with no
private sector investments. In the absence of any fresh capacity addition, the energy
shortage in the state has worsened.
• The demand for industrial power, which subsidized domestic demand, was grossly under
realized while domestic and commercial demand with high losses grew fast.
• Higher than anticipated T&D losses were largely responsible for the current situation in
Orissa wherein private discoms are unable to pay GRIDCO and have hence retarded
reforms.
• The state government provided little support to discoms to counter illegal tapping of
electricity. Rampant hooking of electricity in suburban and rural areas remained
unabated.
• Billing and collection efficiency under the privatized discoms are still far from
improving.
• On the whole, there has been considerable increase in the average tariff at a cumulative
rate of 15.5% annually over the last 9 years. Cross-subsidy has decreased in the post-
reform period creating a heavier burden on domestic consumers. This unabated increase
in tariff in the absence of any perceptible reduction of technical and commercial loss or
improvement in quality of service has led to growing public discontent with reform.
A team leader now heads each division of a discom to whom groups of technical and commercial
people report. Customer Care Centers (CCC) have been set up in urban areas. CCCs have
computerized complaint registration system and operate through their own mobile
troubleshooting units with trained staff and equipment. For better customer relationship
management, the CCCs have interactive voice response systems, wireless communication set ups,
and total networking facilities. Similarly, in rural areas village committees have helped to
improve service efficiency.
The discoms have developed innovative systems for collection of electricity charges from the
consumers, particularly in rural areas. Before privatization, the OSEB would collect money from
households in rural areas. In urban areas consumers paid their bills at selected counters around the
city. The micro-privatization program has led to some innovations in this area. NESCO and
WESCO have tried this program on an experimental basis. Under this program customer relations
and revenue collection skills have improved, with the responsibility of collecting revenue
61
transferred to Village Bidyut Sangha (VBS) (an electricity committee consisting of 5 to 6
members from the electricity users of the rural areas) and to distribution companies.
After privatization and implementation of reform measures, improvements have taken place in a
number of areas. Some of these include metering, strengthening of the distribution network, and
introduction of micro-privatization for rural areas. Yet while the restructured electricity sector
was expected to help introduce competition, improve efficiency, add capacity, rationalize tariffs
and enhance consumer welfare through lower price and enhanced services. On the contrary, it has
raised tariffs, denied consumer choice and constrained investment.
Overoptimistic evaluation of key data and faulty baseline data at the onset of reforms led to
serious problems in financial engineering, which in turn affected the workings of corporatized
distribution agencies. This has clarified that baseline data on performance parameters such as
losses and bill collection must to be accurate, and a comprehensive assessment of receivables
must be undertaken at the time of privatization and financial restructuring. A major lessen learned
from the Orissan experience is that governments should ensure that the distribution sector is
financially viable through state support in the transition phase to privatization.
Delhi
The key drivers of the reform process that led to the privatization of distribution in Delhi in 2002
are discussed in this section.
The performance of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU, later DVB) steadily
deteriorated from the mid-1970s onward, reaching its nadir in the year 1997-98. This can be
attributed to a large number of un-metered customers, massive under-billing and poor collections.
In 2001, it was estimated that 14% of Delhi’s power consumption was going unbilled to un-
electrified colonies and squatter settlements. The T&D losses were approximately 22.3% in
1990-91 and deteriorated to 47.5% in 2001-02.
The commercial performance of DVB was steadily degenerating, as the utility’s retail tariffs were
clearly insufficient to cover its costs. The financial performance of DVB in the last two years of
its existence is summarized in the table below:
Table B. Financial Performance of DVB (Rs. Million)

2000-01 2001-02
Income 31,945.10 35,496.20

Total Net Expenditure 45,736.80 52,095.20
Surplus/Deficit -11,044.10 -11,960.40
DESU Period Liabilities (Up to February 25, 1997) – Rs. 129,530 million
DVB Liabilities – Rs. 101,840 million
Accumulated Liabilities (As in July 2001) – Rs. 231,370 million
Source: India Infrastructure Report 2004
Moreover, audited financial statements of DVB had not been prepared for more than a decade.
There was no register of assets or an accurate master list of customers. Information about the
customers that were in arrears was like poor.
62
The Delhi Electricity Reform Bill was passed by the Delhi Assembly and got presidential assent
on March 11, 2001. The Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules unbundled the
functions of DVB into a generating company (Genco), a Transmission Company (Transco), three
distribution companies and a holding company.
The main concerns presented by potential investors that needed to be addressed at the time of
reforms were that:
• There was a need to provide reasonable and realistic annual efficiency

improvement targets.
• In the absence of up-to-date registers or annual accounts, it was difficult to
undertake any asset valuation.
• Tariff shocks after undertaking reforms needed to be avoided. Simultaneously,
investors required a reasonable return if they were to achieve efficiency
improvements.
Salient features of the Delhi reform model
The Delhi privatization process was structured to overcome some of the concerns arising out of
the Orissa privatization. The privatization process in Delhi attempted to reduce the tariff
uncertainty by fixing a loss curve to be used by the regulator in setting tariffs. The methodology
followed for arriving at the losses in distribution business was devised in accordance to the policy
directions known as the ‘Aggregate Technical and Commercial Losses’ (AT&C).
As an incentive to the private players, on an additional reduction (i.e. beyond the negotiated
reduction targets), the utilities would retain 50% of the additional revenue realized, the remainder
being passed on to the consumers as a rebate on tariffs. The investors were also assured a fixed
return of 16% on the issued and free reserves till the end of 2006-07, subject to all expenses as
permitted by the DERC.
The following table compares the average tariff levels pre- and post-privatization of distribution
as follows:
Table C. Comparison of Pre and Post Privatization Average Tariffs

S.No Consumer Ave. Tariff Ave. Ave. CAGR
Category (1999-00) Tariff Tariff
(2000-01) (2003-04)
(In Rs./kWh) (In %)
1. Domestic 1.49 1.49 2.88 24.57
2. Commercial 4.03 4.15 6.19 15.38
3. Street Lighting - - 4.04 -
4. Agriculture 0.50 0.50 1.34 38.90
5. Industry 4.03 4.24 5.25 9.22
Source: Planning Commission, 2002
63
Table D. Trend of actual AT&C Loss Reduction
2002-03 (9 Month period) 2003-04
AT&C Losses Actual/ AT&C Losses Actual/
(As per target) Achieved (As per target) Achieved
North Delhi Power 47.6% 49.12% 45.35% 44.86%
Limited (NDPL)
BSES Rajdhani 47.55% 47.40% 46% 45.06%
Power Limited
(BRPL)
BSES Yamuna 56.45% 61.89% 54.7% 54.29%
Power Limited
(BYPL)
Source: Order on ARR for FY 2003-04 & 2004-05 and determination of Bulk,
Retail and Generation Supply Tariffs, DERC
Table D shows that all the three distribution companies have over-achieved in reducing AT&C
levels during the financial year 2003-04. As part of its efforts to drive down AT&C losses, NDPL
is undertaking energy measurement at grid stations and all sub-stations receiving energy from
these stations. It is also undertaking energy measurement at each Distribution Transformer and
LT Feeder. Similarly, initiatives for energy audit are also being undertaken by BSES.
A comparison of load shedding and distribution transformer failure in the summer of 2003 as
compared to the previous summer (when distribution by handled by DVB) shows that overall
power reliability has improved drastically in Delhi. Simultaneously, an augmentation of overload
transformers, load balancing and maintenance of distribution transformers has resulted in a
decrease in the number of failures of transformers for both BSES and NDPL. The performance of
Delhi on various parameters as reflected in the latest CRISIL-ICRA Report is presented in the
table below:
Table E. Performance of Delhi on various parameters

Parameter Maximum Score
Score Assigned
State Government related 17.00 12.88
parameters
SERC related parameters 15.00 10.88
Business Risk Analysis
Generation 6.00 2.25
Transmission and Distribution 21.00 11.65
Financial Risk Analysis 20.00 10.00
Others 5.00 4.25
Progress in attaining commercial 16.00 0.00
viability
Total 100.00 51.91
Source Power Sector Rating. Consolidated report to the Ministry of
Power March 2005, Prepared by ICRA Limited and CRISIL Ratings
64
The report has highlighted the following areas in Delhi’s power sector that need improvement:
• The loan support by the GNCTD to the Transco is leading to a skewed capital
structure and heavy losses on the revenue account. It is therefore necessary to
provide support in terms of subsidy grants or clarity of transitional loans being
extended to the Transco. There have also been delays in the implementation of
certain targets as per the Electricity Act 2003, such as notification of district level
committees or the designation of assessing officers.
• At the Electricity Regulatory Commission end, the timeliness of tariff orders
needs to be improved as tariffs for both 2003-04 and 2004-05 were delayed.
• Most generation plants are aged and have low Plant Load Factor (PLF) of
59.35% (2003-04) and high levels of manpower with over 2.33 employees per
MW of capacity.
The power sector in Delhi has a negative net-worth due to accumulated losses of Rs. 27,460
million including Rs. 24,480 million in Transco’s books. This along with low cost coverage of
52.5% reflects unfavorably on the financial health of the sector as a whole.
Conclusion
Though it is still early to judge the outcome of the power sector reforms undertaken in Delhi to
arrive at any definitive conclusion, some of the key lessons learned from its privatization
experience are as follows:
• AT&C losses are a better measure of estimating energy losses than the
conventional T&D losses.
• The unambiguous government commitment to provide financial support to
private distribution companies through subsidized power purchases during the 5-
year transition period instilled confidence in prospective investors.
• A well-specified multi-year tariff setting regime based on realistic loss targets
was introduced, which could be clearly and accurately measured.
• Given the rising demand and lacking capacity addition, there is an immediate
need to augment energy availability in Delhi.
65
Appendix 2. Household Electricity and Water Survey
Energy and Water Questionnaire
State : District :
Tehsil : Block :
Village : Panchayat :
I. Area Profile
II. Households details (use code wherever indicated)
1. Name of the respondent: _______________________________________________
4. Caste:
[Code: SC- 1, ST- 2, OBC- 3, General- 4]
6. Number of Family members:
Number of family members Total

Male
Adult
Female
Male
Children
Female
Total
Education:
Total members
Code Education Total
Male Female
1 Illiterate
2 Primary
3 Graduate and above
8. Type of dwelling:
Code Write the appropriate code/number
Type of house:
1
[Code: Kutchha – 1, Pucca –2]
2 Do you have a separate kitchen *
3 Do you have a bathroom in the house? **
4 Do you have a latrine in the house? **
5 Do you have a household water source **
66
[Code: Yes, have a separate kitchen (pucca room) –1, Kitchen is in the open (thatched roof) – 2,
any other (specify) –3] **[Code: Yes –1, No –2]
III. Livelihood details (use code wherever indicated, also write the actual figure)
Primary occupation:
[Code: Agriculture – 1, Service – 2, Labour – 3, Business –4, any other (specify) – 5]
Secondary occupation:
[Code: Agriculture – 1, Service – 2, Labour – 3, Business –4, any other (specify) – 5]
How much of land do you own? _________________________________________

[Code: No land –1, less than an bigha–2, 1 to 3 bigha–3, 3 to 6 bigha – 4, 6 to 9 bigha 5, 9 to 12
bigha, 12 and above – 6]
5. (a) How much of agricultural land is irrigated? ___________________________

[Code: less than a bigha –1, 1 to 3bigha–2, 3 to 6bigha– 3, 6 to 9 bigha –4, 9 to 12 bigha –5, 12
bigha and above – 6]
(b) What are the constraints in extending land under irrigation?

[Code: Hire , hence depends on availability of pump set–1, low water table, water not easily
available –2, any other (specify) -3]
_____________________________________________________________________
6 (a) Means of Irrigation:
[Code: Manual –1, Energized –2, diesel –3, animal –4]
(b) What are the water sources for irrigation?
Code Water source (prioritize according to usage)

1 River
2 Canal
Electric
3 Ground water
Diesel
4 Water/irrigation tank/pond
5 Spring
6 Any other (specify)
(e) Major crops grown in Kharif(monsoon) season
(g) Major crops grown in Rabi (winter) season
(j) How much hiring charges do you pay per hour for water/pump set?
Cost of Hiring/ running charge (in
running a Hired Rs.) Total
Owned
pump set Water Pump set
Diesel
Energised
67
(i) What are the problems faced in hiring the pump set?
[Code: irregular electricity supply –1, dependent on pump set owner –2, any other (specify) –3]
_________________________________________________________________________
7 (a) What make of pump set do you own and when did you purchase it? _______________
Tick the appropriate selection, use code

About the pump set wherever necessary, or the actual
amount/numbers
Submersible
Type of pump set
Sub-surface
Diesel
Fuel used
Electricity
Kirloskar
Make of the pump
Locally assembled
set
Any other (specify)
a. Actual cost
Cost of the pump b. Labor cost
set c. Cost of boring, etc.
Total cost (a+b+c)
Capacity (in hp)
Hourly consumption of diesel*
*[Code: Less than a liter –1, 1 to 2 liter –2, More than 2 liter –3, any other (specify) –4]
(b) In case of using energised , what is the duration of the bill?

[Code: Monthly –1, Bi-monthly –2, Any other (specify) –3]
(d) How much cost do you incur in operation and maintenance of the yearly and on what?
_________________________________________________________________
Code Amount in Rs. (tick the appropriate selection)

1 Less than 500 Rs.
2 500 – 1000 Rs.
3 1000 – 1500 Rs.
4 More than 1000 Rs.
IV. Energy details (use code wherever indicated, also write the actual figure)
(a) Do you have a grid/power connection

(Code: Yes - 1, No - 2)
(a) If answer to question 1 is yes, then under what scheme did you get the grid/power connection?
________________________
[Code: Kutir Jyoti –1, any other government scheme (specify) –2, private connection paid for it –
3]
(b) Did you face any problem in getting the power connection? _________________
[Code: paid high deposit for getting the connection –1, had to pay bribe –2, long bureaucratic
procedures –3, any other (specify) –4]
4 (a) Is meter installed to take the reading?
68
[Code: Yes –1, No –2]
(b) If answer to question 3(a) is No, then do you pay a flat rate, if yes, what amount?
_____________
[Code: Yes –1, No –2]
6. How much did you pay for getting the grid connection? __________________________
Code Cost incurred to get the grid connection (tick the appropriate)
1 Less than 250 Rs.
2 Rs. 250 – 750/-
3 Rs. 750 – 1250/-
4 Rs. 1250 – 1750/-
5 More than Rs.1750/-
7. How much time did it take to get the grid connection (tick the appropriate)? ____________
Time taken to get the grid

Code Code Time taken to get the grid connection
connection
1 Less than 3 months 4 1 to 1.5 year
2 3 to 6 months 5 1.5 to 2 years
3 6 months to a year 6 More than 2 years
8. How many hours in a day do you get electricity (tick the appropriate selection)? ________
Hours of
Code Summer Monsoon Winter
electricity
1 Less than 4 hrs
2 4 – 8 hrs
3 8 – 12 hrs
4 12 – 16 hrs
5 16 – 20 hrs
6 20 – 24 hrs
12. (a) What is your monthly consumption of (tick the appropriate)?
Mention means Use code and also write the

Code Type Consumption used to light actual amount spent
monthly*
1 Less than 2 liter
2 2 to 4 liter
3 4 to 6 liter
1 Kerosene
4 6 to 8 liter
5 8 to 10 liter
6 More than 10 liter
1 Less than a dozen
2 12- 24
2 Candles
3 24 –36
4 More than 36
69
1 Less than 2
Batteries for 2 2 – 4 batteries
3
lighting 3 4 – 6 batteries
4 More than 6
Any other
4 source used
(specify)
*[Code: Less than Rs. 20/- -1, Rs. 20 to 40/- –2, Rs. 40 to 60/- –3, More than Rs. 60/- – 4]
(a) List all the appliances that you own that work on either electricity or dry cells:
Changes
Cause for
Cost Amount made in
No of repair/reason
Appliances incurred spent for appliance
Code Quantity Make annual for equipment
owned on repairs to suit
repairs failure (use
purchase (annually) electricity
code)*
supply
1 TV
2 Fan
3 Torch
Radio /tape
4
recorder
5 Mobile
6 Refrigerator
Bulb/tube
7
light
8 Iron
9 Cooler
Wall
10 clock/time
piece
Washing
11
machine
12 Pump set
13 Chaff cutter
Any other
14
(specify)
* [Code: voltage fluctuation –1, faulty parts –2, poor repairs –3, local make –4, any other
(specify) –5]
15. What is the source of lighting for you (prioritize according to usage)?
Code Source of lighting Rank Code Source of lighting Rank

Electricity Kerosene lamps and Solar lighting
1 5
system
2 Kerosene Lamps 6 Any other (specify)
Electricity and LPG/petromax lamp
3 7
Kerosene lamps
Solar lighting
4
system
70
16. (a) Usage of energy for household consumption (use code)
Use of energy Summer Monsoon Winter

for Option I Option II Option I Option II Option I Option II
Cooking
Heating water
Space heating
[Code: fire wood –1, electricity –2, dung cake –3, coal –4, kerosene –5, LPG –6, farm residue –7,
any other (specify) – 8]
16. (b) How much do you spend a month on all forms of cooking fuel combined?
Code Money spent on cooking fuel (tick the appropriate)

1 Less than Rs. 100/-
2 Rs. 100 – 200/-
3 Rs. 200 – 300/-
4 Rs. 300 – 400/-
5 Rs. 400 – 500/-
6 More than 500 Rs.
V. Water details (use code wherever indicated, also write the actual figure)
(a) What are the water sources you primarily have access to/use for meeting your drinking water
needs (prioritize according to usage)?
Drinking water
Water
Code Summer Monsoons Winter
source
Rank Distance Rank Distance Rank Distance
Hand
1
pump
2 Open well
Village
3
pond
Tap stand
4 (public
supply)
5 River
6 Canal
7 Spring
8 Tube well
Household
9
connection
Any other
10
specify)
(b) What are the water sources you primarily have access to/use for meeting your household
consumption needs (prioritize according to usage)?
71
Household consumption
Household
Summer Monsoons Winter
water
Water Water Water
needs Distance Distance Distance
source* source* source*
Washing
Bathing
Cleaning
utensils
Washing
cattle
Any other
(specify)
*[Code for water source: Hand pump –1, open well –2, village pond –3, tap (public supply) – 4,
river –5, canal –6, tube well –7, tap stand –8, public supply –9, any other (specify) –10]
(a) Is there a problem in accessing a certain water source for instance hand pump, village pond,
etc?
Problem in accessing a water Household

Code Drinking water
point consumption needs
1 Yes, have problem of access
2 No problem
(b) If yes, what are the problems? _____________________________________________
Household
Code Problems Drinking water consumption
needs
1 Too many people use the same water point
2 Too far from the house*
Can not take water from nearby water point
3
because of social barriers
4 Nearby water point dry up in the lean season
Mention distance from the house
5 (b) How do you store water for household consumption?
Household
Code Storing water Drinking water consumption
needs
1 Plastic container
2 Steel container
3 Clay container
4 Overhead tank
5 Do not store water
5. (c) Daily water consumption for household (liter/day) _______________________
72
6. Do you have access to running water for sanitation?
Code Access to water (tick the appropriate selection)

Yes, latrine has Running tap water available
1
water Fetch water through buckets
2 No, latrine does not have water
3 Hands washed with soap after each visit to latrine
7. (a) Has there been a change in the access to major water points over the last five years (specify
the change)?
_________________________________________________________________________
Code Change in access Drinking water Household consumption needs

1 Yes, there has been a change
2 No, change has been observed
7 (b) If yes, then indicate the old and the new source (rank the selection):
Household
Drinking water
consumption
Code Sources Code Sources
Old New Old New
source source source source
1 Hand pump 1 Hand pump
2 Open well 2 Open well
3 Village pond 3 Village pond
Tap (public Tap (public
4 4
supply) supply)
5 River 5 River
6 Canal 6 Canal
7 Spring 7 Spring
8 Tube well 8 Tube well
Any other Any other
9 9
(specify) (specify)
8. What is the reason for change in the water source?

[Code: earlier water point dried up –1, too far –2, new water points near the house –3, can not
access the old water point because of village conflict –4, getting water from the earlier source was
a problem –5, any other (specify) –6, not applicable –7]
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
9. (a) Has there been any scheme by the government for improving the water services in the
village?[Code: Yes – 1, No –2]
Name of the investigator: _____________________

Date of survey: ______________________________
73

Working Papers Series: Improving Electricity Services in Rural India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Working Papers Series: Improving Electricity Services in Rural India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Electricity Services in

CGSD Working Paper No. 30

Working Papers Series

The Earth Institute at Columbia University

Vijay Modi is Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New York

Section III: Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojna..................... 27

Section IV: Case Studies ........................................................................... 31

Section V: Scaling up rural electrification in India................................ 47

Table 1. Countries with large population without access to electricity......................................... 11

Figure 1. Decrease in # of electrified villages due to de-electrification........................................ 13

Box 1. Primary sources of energy for lighting. ............................................................................. 15

Case Studies of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh

3. Irrigated agriculture is critical to the Indian economy. Hence a nuanced approach to

b. Promote use of state-subsidized energy-efficient lighting such as compact

6. Use information technology to monitor metering at feeder and distribution transformer

Case Studies of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh

Table 1. Countries with large population without access to electricity

India 579.10 35.44 393

Why is rural electrification important?

Successes in electrification and electricity services can be achieved, nonetheless, by boldly

Figure 1. Decrease in # of electrified villages due to de-electrification

Pace of Village Electrification in India

1947 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2004

Relationship Between State Domestic Product and Households Electrified

Source: Census of India, 2001

Household electricity services and the rural poor

Commercial 239.1 293.6 330.2 369.9 404.2 426.3

Agriculture 21.2 20.2 21.0 22.6 35.4 41.6

Industry 275.5 312.7 322.8 342 366.5 378.7

Traction 346.8 382.2 410.3 415.3 435.9 449.2

Outside State 151.4 138.1 163.8 190.1 187.9 194.4

Overall (average) 165.3 180.3 186.8 207 226.3 239.9

Source: NSS, 1999

Figure 3. Irrigation costs as a % of farm income - Haryana electricity pumps.

Share in total gross income

Source: World Bank, 2002

The Electricity Act 2003

• Basic infrastructure such as distribution transformers and distribution lines are

Box 3. Goals of the Electricity Act 2003

• Accessibility – electricity to all households by 2012

Review of Select Rural Electrificaton (RE) Schemes45

(i) The Rural Electrification Corporation

Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojna (PMGY)

Kutir Jyoti Program (KJP)

Minimum Needs Program (MNP)

Accelerated Rural Electrification Program (AREP)

Rural Electricity Supply Technology Mission (REST)

REST proposes an integrated approach49 for rural electrification and aims:

• To identify and adopt technological solutions

http://powermin.nic.in/JSP_SERVLETS/internal.jsp definition of an electrified village accessed on

For achieving the said objectives, the RGGVY envisions creating a:

Salient features of the RGGVY

Universal Service Obligations (USO): Physical and Financial dimensions

Table 5. Reported status of Rural Electrification, March 200456

1 Electrification of 125,000 un-electrified villages which includes 8,125.00

2 Rural Households Electrification (RHE) of population under BPL i.e. 3,510.00

3 Augmentation of backbone network in already electrified villages having 4,620.00

Total (1+2+3) 16,255.00

Outlay for the scheme 16,000.00

Criticisms of RGGVY for Scaling-up Electrification Efforts

Figure 4. Variation in total three-phase, MV line cost (labor and materials).

Benton REC (U.S.A)

Source: ESMAP, 2000